Thread: Re: Tanks Was: Wet Navy

7 posts.

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:23 AM, <> wrote:

>
>
> Gary (I'm replying to Gary, right?)--
>

Yessir, sorry I guess I should make it a habit to sign my emails.

> All of the Striker II vehicles were fully designed by me in FF&S, and then
> their values were abstracted down to S2 terms. I did this because Frank
> did "abstract" starship designs in BR which resulted in some broken ship
> designs. So I had to put my foot down and say, "no more abstract designs
> for abstract systems." Of course that meant that I had to do all of the
> extra work. But yes, every vehicle in S2 is good to go, unless of course I
> made an error. I loved the Oriflamme tanks and TDs. Big mean brutes.
>
>
>

Excellent. Do you have the designs anywhere? On that Mac you can't get
into perhaps?

I recall the "Rapira" 120mm ETC gun from Challenge that the Oriflammen
retrofitted on Intrepid-120's as well. Your work, as well?
> Yessir, sorry I guess I should make it a habit to sign my emails.

No problem. It's just that when I hit reply on this webmail all I see in
the To: block is the group, and in order to see who sent it I have to save
the draft, back out of it, etc.

> Excellent. Do you have the designs anywhere? On that Mac you can't get
> into perhaps?

Probably. However, I have recovered them from storage, and will try to get
into them. Only one of them should have been PW protected, and the other
should allow me to read the floppies, and back in the day most of our work
was stored on floppies rather than HDs, and I have found a couple of
floppies.

> I recall the "Rapira" 120mm ETC gun from Challenge that the Oriflammen
> retrofitted on Intrepid-120's as well. Your work, as well?

Yes. That was one of those designs that I had to do to match up with an
illo. Rather than saying, "you drew that tank wrong," it was an
opportunity to say, "Cool, variant."

Good stuff guys.

On the Abrams - you should use HRT as the thermals. As TLs advance you replace HRT with passive EMS. Earlier TLs use the passive IR sensors before HRT becomes available. You can also give the Abrams 300m short range HRT to start and then upgrade it to 3km short range HRT for later variants.

Dave - I always wondered if the TW2k 2.2 AFVs were designed with FF&S (as it was the same game system by then) or were 'eyeballed'. There are books and books of modern AFVs and weapons for TW2k 2.2 if people want modern equipment.

The 120mm ETC autocannon is (as we've discussed before on this list) one of the best all-round weapons at ANY tech level using the design rules of FF&S. It simply outclasses anything else on bang-for-buck. Fusion weapons are still neutered, even after Striker-II. Mass drivers take too much power. Ordinary CPR run out of puff. ETC weapons are the bomb!

For Striker-II battles I always equip my vehicles with ETC autocannon if designing from scratch. My mercenary unit 'Devlin's Dragoons' use some nasty grav tanks with frontal armour proof against all the standard Imperial fusion guns and packing ETC autocannon that out-range and out-penetrate them. Who knows why the Imperium sticks with fusion (I usually handwave it with vague references to ammo resupply in expeditionary operations at stellar distances).

--- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>
> > Yessir, sorry I guess I should make it a habit to sign my emails.
>
> No problem. It's just that when I hit reply on this webmail all I see in
> the To: block is the group, and in order to see who sent it I have to save
> the draft, back out of it, etc.
>
> > Excellent. Do you have the designs anywhere? On that Mac you can't get
> > into perhaps?
>
> Probably. However, I have recovered them from storage, and will try to get
> into them. Only one of them should have been PW protected, and the other
> should allow me to read the floppies, and back in the day most of our work
> was stored on floppies rather than HDs, and I have found a couple of
> floppies.
>
> > I recall the "Rapira" 120mm ETC gun from Challenge that the Oriflammen
> > retrofitted on Intrepid-120's as well. Your work, as well?
>
> Yes. That was one of those designs that I had to do to match up with an
> illo. Rather than saying, "you drew that tank wrong," it was an
> opportunity to say, "Cool, variant."
>

Thanks, Jake.

IIRC, the T2Kv2.2 vehicles should all have been eyeballed, but maybe
updated compared to T2K2 to reflect newer information or game mechanics.
The reason for this is that we did it in about 10 days start to finish.
Frank came in one day and said that since TNE was running late and
wouldn't be out in time for the summer con season, we needed a big release
for the summer cons. So we dropped everything and put out T2Kv2.2. So
there would not have been time to design them all from FF&S.

What you say about the ETC guns was a blend of on-purpose and less on
purpose.

It was definitely on purpose in that in TNE we believed very strongly in
chemical energy storage. Chemical energy is just a great way to store
energy. Maybe not as flexible as gas tanks or electricity, but compact and
efficient. And since ETC raises chemical energy to the next level,
perfecting it effectively, it was supposed to be the bomb. And all of that
was based on current weapons research, so was as realistic as we could
make it.

The less on-purpose part I'm less happy about. By 1993-4 Traveller had
established so many categories of alternative weapons (slug throwers, ETC
slug-throwers, lasers, plasma/fusion weapons, gauss/rail/EM weapons) as
being "in use" in the game that it made it very difficult to work out what
their ecological niches would be. I am a stickler for trying to make sure
that the way you say things work in a game is REALLY how they would work.
Hence my disdain for the "Picard Maneuver." And it was very important for
me to try to make sure we worked it all out in advance as much as we
could. My previous discussion about space combat missiles is an example of
the time we would spend on that. In the "real" "future," if there is such
a thing, you would see the laws of practicality working out which families
of weapons would actually pan out and replace or supplant each other as
time went by. You wouldn't have a bunch of parallel approaches supposedly
living side-by-side, not if raw physics and economics showed that one was
more cost-effective than the others. However, by 1993 had a sixteen-year
backlog of established designs saying Imperial tanks used fusion guns,
Zhodani tanks used lasers, these guys use gauss rifles, those guys use
ACRs, etc. And there was simply not enough time to take each and every one
of those design sequences and really work out all of the macro-economics
on them to say, "at TL X, people use this, at TL Y this one is better."
Besides, even if we had, that would have upset people, because they had
certain facts in their heads, that a "TL 15 Trepida Grav Tank" used a
fusion gun. So we basically left established, popular weapons in place so
that people could still play with them, even though in some cases they
didn't follow from tested logic. And as I'm sure you can imagine, in order
to do all of that right would have required a lot of detailed, fiddly
redesign of the design sequences to make sure, "At TL A, tech P becomes
better than tech Q, so sand off a little performance on Q here, pump up a
little performance on P there." In an ideal world, that's what we would
have done. Ideal worlds come around only infrequently. Another artifact of
that is the huge mish-mash of weapons in Striker II units. They are
basically like that because we had rated up all of these classic Traveller
weapons (gauss rifles, ACRs, LAGs, etc.) that were established as being
used by people, and people needed to be able to see them in the game.

One more tension between "in-game realism" and established "in-game facts"
and the complexity of trying to make a design sequence for every
technology imaginable, and the fact that time is incompressible. People
sometimes ask me, "what would you do differently," and the answer always
comes out, "not much," because the only way to have done anything
differently was to somehow have had more time that we didn't have. You
can't say, "I would have been taller, or better looking, or have a
prehensile tail," and you also can't say, "I would have had 336 hours in a
week instead of 168."

Dave

> Good stuff guys.
>
> On the Abrams - you should use HRT as the thermals. As TLs advance you
> replace HRT with passive EMS. Earlier TLs use the passive IR sensors
> before HRT becomes available. You can also give the Abrams 300m short
> range HRT to start and then upgrade it to 3km short range HRT for later
> variants.
>
> Dave - I always wondered if the TW2k 2.2 AFVs were designed with FF&S (as
> it was the same game system by then) or were 'eyeballed'. There are books
> and books of modern AFVs and weapons for TW2k 2.2 if people want modern
> equipment.
>
> The 120mm ETC autocannon is (as we've discussed before on this list) one
> of the best all-round weapons at ANY tech level using the design rules of
> FF&S. It simply outclasses anything else on bang-for-buck. Fusion
> weapons are still neutered, even after Striker-II. Mass drivers take too
> much power. Ordinary CPR run out of puff. ETC weapons are the bomb!
>
> For Striker-II battles I always equip my vehicles with ETC autocannon if
> designing from scratch. My mercenary unit 'Devlin's Dragoons' use some
> nasty grav tanks with frontal armour proof against all the standard
> Imperial fusion guns and packing ETC autocannon that out-range and
> out-penetrate them. Who knows why the Imperium sticks with fusion (I
> usually handwave it with vague references to ammo resupply in
> expeditionary operations at stellar distances).
>
> --- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>>
>> > Yessir, sorry I guess I should make it a habit to sign my emails.
>>
>> No problem. It's just that when I hit reply on this webmail all I see in
>> the To: block is the group, and in order to see who sent it I have to
>> save
>> the draft, back out of it, etc.
>>
>> > Excellent. Do you have the designs anywhere? On that Mac you can't
>> get
>> > into perhaps?
>>
>> Probably. However, I have recovered them from storage, and will try to
>> get
>> into them. Only one of them should have been PW protected, and the other
>> should allow me to read the floppies, and back in the day most of our
>> work
>> was stored on floppies rather than HDs, and I have found a couple of
>> floppies.
>>
>> > I recall the "Rapira" 120mm ETC gun from Challenge that the Oriflammen
>> > retrofitted on Intrepid-120's as well. Your work, as well?
>>
>> Yes. That was one of those designs that I had to do to match up with an
>> illo. Rather than saying, "you drew that tank wrong," it was an
>> opportunity to say, "Cool, variant."
>>
>
>
>

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM, <> wrote:

>
>
> Thanks, Jake.
>
> IIRC, the T2Kv2.2 vehicles should all have been eyeballed, but maybe
> updated compared to T2K2 to reflect newer information or game mechanics.
> The reason for this is that we did it in about 10 days start to finish.
> Frank came in one day and said that since TNE was running late and
> wouldn't be out in time for the summer con season, we needed a big release
> for the summer cons. So we dropped everything and put out T2Kv2.2. So
> there would not have been time to design them all from FF&S.
>

I remember finding the T2k stats for the M1A1 and the damage I came up with
was in the ballpark, so it was a good eyeball. Or perhaps better kudos to
FF&S, which is still one of my favorite products of any RPG, both for doing
justice to it's our source material aas well as a general sci fi primer
with all it's alternate tech.

>
> What you say about the ETC guns was a blend of on-purpose and less on
> purpose.
>
> It was definitely on purpose in that in TNE we believed very strongly in
> chemical energy storage. Chemical energy is just a great way to store
> energy. Maybe not as flexible as gas tanks or electricity, but compact and
> efficient. And since ETC raises chemical energy to the next level,
> perfecting it effectively, it was supposed to be the bomb. And all of that
> was based on current weapons research, so was as realistic as we could
> make it.
>
> The less on-purpose part I'm less happy about. By 1993-4 Traveller had
> established so many categories of alternative weapons (slug throwers, ETC
> slug-throwers, lasers, plasma/fusion weapons, gauss/rail/EM weapons) as
> being "in use" in the game that it made it very difficult to work out what
> their ecological niches would be.
>

In that way, Traveller is definitely an interesting time capsule on small
arms theory as it was in the 70's and 80's as much as it's computer
paradigm.

> However, by 1993 had a sixteen-year
> backlog of established designs saying Imperial tanks used fusion guns,
> Zhodani tanks used lasers, these guys use gauss rifles, those guys use
> ACRs, etc. And there was simply not enough time to take each and every one
> of those design sequences and really work out all of the macro-economics
> on them to say, "at TL X, people use this, at TL Y this one is better."
>
Course when you put it way seems easier to rationalize it as localized
preconceptions on the "right way" to do it... or just to be different.
Kinda like the Russians perpetuate some of the old Warsaw Pact theory and
logistics even though the Soviet Empire is long gone.

> Besides, even if we had, that would have upset people, because they had
> certain facts in their heads, that a "TL 15 Trepida Grav Tank" used a
> fusion gun. So we basically left established, popular weapons in place so
> that people could still play with them, even though in some cases they
> didn't follow from tested logic. And as I'm sure you can imagine, in order
> to do all of that right would have required a lot of detailed, fiddly
> redesign of the design sequences to make sure, "At TL A, tech P becomes
> better than tech Q, so sand off a little performance on Q here, pump up a
> little performance on P there." In an ideal world, that's what we would
> have done. Ideal worlds come around only infrequently. Another artifact of
> that is the huge mish-mash of weapons in Striker II units. They are
> basically like that because we had rated up all of these classic Traveller
> weapons (gauss rifles, ACRs, LAGs, etc.) that were established as being
> used by people, and people needed to be able to see them in the game.
>
> One more tension between "in-game realism" and established "in-game facts"
> and the complexity of trying to make a design sequence for every
> technology imaginable, and the fact that time is incompressible. People
> sometimes ask me, "what would you do differently," and the answer always
> comes out, "not much," because the only way to have done anything
> differently was to somehow have had more time that we didn't have. You
> can't say, "I would have been taller, or better looking, or have a
> prehensile tail," and you also can't say, "I would have had 336 hours in a
> week instead of 168."
>
>
>
Definitely makes sense. I'e said before, but what you "would have done" as
line manager isn't nearly as interesting to me as what you would do now as
a hobbyist unconstrained by the realities of employment with a production
schedule and deadlines, compromise, etc.

>
> > Good stuff guys.
> >
> > On the Abrams - you should use HRT as the thermals. As TLs advance you
> > replace HRT with passive EMS. Earlier TLs use the passive IR sensors
> > before HRT becomes available. You can also give the Abrams 300m short
> > range HRT to start and then upgrade it to 3km short range HRT for later
> > variants.
>
>

Yesterday I was inclined to do interpolated values to get a 1km short range
HRT. Today I was leaning on TL8 passive IR thinking the HRT sounds more
like the new FLIR in the AIM/D/SEP, and the FLIR from the M60A3 which our
(old school tankers raved about vs the TIS) - would be the TL7 HRT, skipped
for procurement/logistical/political issues in the M1 and M1A1. Now I'm
somewhere in the middle. Probably not that big of a nit to pick, either
way, though.

I did something similar for the radios, too, since SINCGARS performance
seems to fall in between the first couple table entries, as well.
> I remember finding the T2k stats for the M1A1 and the damage I came up
> with
> was in the ballpark, so it was a good eyeball. Or perhaps better kudos to
> FF&S, which is still one of my favorite products of any RPG, both for
> doing
> justice to it's our source material aas well as a general sci fi primer
> with all it's alternate tech.

Thanks. It's nice to be reminded of the upside of what we did, and not
just the downside. Unfortunately it is the nature of problems that they
are what usually prompt people to talk to you, and not, "I'm just writing
to tell you how perfect everything is that you've ever done and how
awesome you are."

> In that way, Traveller is definitely an interesting time capsule on small
> arms theory as it was in the 70's and 80's as much as it's computer
> paradigm.

As is anything. No one ever sees the future as it's really going to be,
and even if they did, it would make a crappy RPG. The real future is
generally way more drab, dull, and awful than what an SFRPG would want it
to be. For example, Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 and 2010 novels. Or, as
another example, in 1977 what if Traveller said, "here's the future.
You're going to have an iPhone, and 'the Soviet Union' is now 'Russia.'
Otherwise things are pretty much the same. Knock yourself out."

> Course when you put it way seems easier to rationalize it as localized
> preconceptions on the "right way" to do it... or just to be different.
> Kinda like the Russians perpetuate some of the old Warsaw Pact theory and
> logistics even though the Soviet Empire is long gone.

Yes, BUT that goes a lot farther in imagination than it does in reality.
If we really are engaging in interstellar war, people are going to figure
out pretty rapidly what works better and worse.

> Definitely makes sense. I'e said before, but what you "would have done" as
> line manager isn't nearly as interesting to me as what you would do now as
> a hobbyist unconstrained by the realities of employment with a production
> schedule and deadlines, compromise, etc.

Well, first I'd start with a 336-hour week. :-)

By the way, Jake, nice analysis on using the existing equipment to suggest
product improvement within a tech level, using the higher-power (longer
range) system to reflect incremental improvements within a TL rather than
trying to crowd too many improvements into a single TL. I think that's a
good way to get at stuff too fine-grained for something that goes up to
TL-15+.

> Good stuff guys.
>
> On the Abrams - you should use HRT as the thermals. As TLs advance you
> replace HRT with passive EMS. Earlier TLs use the passive IR sensors
> before HRT becomes available. You can also give the Abrams 300m short
> range HRT to start and then upgrade it to 3km short range HRT for later
> variants.
>
> Dave - I always wondered if the TW2k 2.2 AFVs were designed with FF&S (as
> it was the same game system by then) or were 'eyeballed'. There are books
> and books of modern AFVs and weapons for TW2k 2.2 if people want modern
> equipment.
>
> The 120mm ETC autocannon is (as we've discussed before on this list) one
> of the best all-round weapons at ANY tech level using the design rules of
> FF&S. It simply outclasses anything else on bang-for-buck. Fusion
> weapons are still neutered, even after Striker-II. Mass drivers take too
> much power. Ordinary CPR run out of puff. ETC weapons are the bomb!
>
> For Striker-II battles I always equip my vehicles with ETC autocannon if
> designing from scratch. My mercenary unit 'Devlin's Dragoons' use some
> nasty grav tanks with frontal armour proof against all the standard
> Imperial fusion guns and packing ETC autocannon that out-range and
> out-penetrate them. Who knows why the Imperium sticks with fusion (I
> usually handwave it with vague references to ammo resupply in
> expeditionary operations at stellar distances).
>
> --- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>>
>> > Yessir, sorry I guess I should make it a habit to sign my emails.
>>
>> No problem. It's just that when I hit reply on this webmail all I see in
>> the To: block is the group, and in order to see who sent it I have to
>> save
>> the draft, back out of it, etc.
>>