Thread: Re: Battletech Jumpship in the Imperium

Let alone all the competition for the drive.  It is capable of up to Jump-9, can be charged by 1% Earth ambient sunlight in 1 week using a sail no more than 4 square kilometers in area, can travel through a Jump no-go zone (first jump was from Sol's nadir to zenith point, aka through the Sol jump limit), and arrives effectively instantaneously (i.e. no spending 1 week in Jump space).

The problem is you need something to go from the 10 AU limit around the star to the planet, until you start plotting Pirate Points (places where gravity is low enough between a planet and star, or planet and moon, aka L1). Theoretically the 10 day trip could be handled via Traveller Jump drive, though BT engines are far more efficient (a 1900 ton Dropship only burns 18.4 tons of fuel while performing a 1G acceleration for 10 days)

The civilian version of the Battletech FTL drive takes up 95% of the mounting ship's mass, while the military version takes up just under 50% of the mounting ship's mass.  Battle riders can be attached to it (and are on the civilian version) but they have to have the 'antenna' going through their hull to allow the FTL field to encompass and transport them.  If you try that with a standard Traveller Battle Rider, it won't make the trip.

As to Reverse-engineering time, a planet was able to start with 20th century tech, develop the theory for it ~40 years later, and develop the drive 90 years later.  Since the Imperial world knows the drive is possible, they can shave a lot of time off that schedule. They'll also see references in the computer about HPGs (Jump-15 transmission radius, again instantaneous), and the BT weapons will be obscene in damage (IIRC the estimate of 1 pt of damage melting up to 62.5 kilos of steel resulting in ~55 MJ/point of damage is very conservative)

Todd Kes

--- On Fri, 7/13/12, userbimbob wrote:
> just wait until some idiot House
> pilot misjumps a sail ship from the Battletech 'verse into
> the Imperium...
>
> how long would it take to reverse-engineer a Kearny-Fuchida
> drive?

hmm... guess i need to find a simple way to overlay the Mechwarrior
starmap over the Third Imperium... and watch the "great land rush" as
the major powers expand past the old borders of Charted Space... :)

or maybe rescale the Spacemaster starmap 10-15x larger to get some
'interesting' aliens to interact with... ;)

or would that be too evil a thing to do to unsuspecting Scout players?

--- In , Todd Kes <khartoum@...> wrote:
>
> Let alone all the competition for the drive. It is capable of up to
Jump-9, can be charged by 1% Earth ambient sunlight in 1 week using a
sail no more than 4 square kilometers in area, can travel through a Jump
no-go zone (first jump was from Sol's nadir to zenith point, aka through
the Sol jump limit), and arrives effectively instantaneously (i.e. no
spending 1 week in Jump space).
>
> The problem is you need something to go from the 10 AU limit around
the star to the planet, until you start plotting Pirate Points (places
where gravity is low enough between a planet and star, or planet and
moon, aka L1). Theoretically the 10 day trip could be handled via
Traveller Jump drive, though BT engines are far more efficient (a 1900
ton Dropship only burns 18.4 tons of fuel while performing a 1G
acceleration for 10 days)
>
> The civilian version of the Battletech FTL drive takes up 95% of the
mounting ship's mass, while the military version takes up just under 50%
of the mounting ship's mass. Battle riders can be attached to it (and
are on the civilian version) but they have to have the 'antenna' going
through their hull to allow the FTL field to encompass and transport
them. If you try that with a standard Traveller Battle Rider, it won't
make the trip.
>
> As to Reverse-engineering time, a planet was able to start with 20th
century tech, develop the theory for it ~40 years later, and develop the
drive 90 years later. Since the Imperial world knows the drive is
possible, they can shave a lot of time off that schedule. They'll also
see references in the computer about HPGs (Jump-15 transmission radius,
again instantaneous), and the BT weapons will be obscene in damage (IIRC
the estimate of 1 pt of damage melting up to 62.5 kilos of steel
resulting in ~55 MJ/point of damage is very conservative)
>
> Todd Kes
>
> --- On Fri, 7/13/12, userbimbob wrote:
> > just wait until some idiot House pilot misjumps a sail ship from the
Battletech 'verse into the Imperium...
> >
> > how long would it take to reverse-engineer a Kearny-Fuchida drive?

Except that in the Traveller universe the Higgs Boson masses 125 GeV/c2
and in the BT universe it masses 130. So all bets are off.

And yes, I completely made that up.

> Let alone all the competition for the drive.  It is capable of up to
> Jump-9, can be charged by 1% Earth ambient sunlight in 1 week using a sail
> no more than 4 square kilometers in area, can travel through a Jump no-go
> zone (first jump was from Sol's nadir to zenith point, aka through the Sol
> jump limit), and arrives effectively instantaneously (i.e. no spending 1
> week in Jump space).
>
> The problem is you need something to go from the 10 AU limit around the
> star to the planet, until you start plotting Pirate Points (places where
> gravity is low enough between a planet and star, or planet and moon, aka
> L1). Theoretically the 10 day trip could be handled via Traveller Jump
> drive, though BT engines are far more efficient (a 1900 ton Dropship only
> burns 18.4 tons of fuel while performing a 1G acceleration for 10 days)
>
> The civilian version of the Battletech FTL drive takes up 95% of the
> mounting ship's mass, while the military version takes up just under 50%
> of the mounting ship's mass.  Battle riders can be attached to it (and are
> on the civilian version) but they have to have the 'antenna' going through
> their hull to allow the FTL field to encompass and transport them.  If you
> try that with a standard Traveller Battle Rider, it won't make the trip.
>
> As to Reverse-engineering time, a planet was able to start with 20th
> century tech, develop the theory for it ~40 years later, and develop the
> drive 90 years later.  Since the Imperial world knows the drive is
> possible, they can shave a lot of time off that schedule. They'll also
> see references in the computer about HPGs (Jump-15 transmission radius,
> again instantaneous), and the BT weapons will be obscene in damage (IIRC
> the estimate of 1 pt of damage melting up to 62.5 kilos of steel resulting
> in ~55 MJ/point of damage is very conservative)
>
> Todd Kes
>
> --- On Fri, 7/13/12, userbimbob wrote:
>> just wait until some idiot House
>> pilot misjumps a sail ship from the Battletech 'verse into
>> the Imperium...
>>
>> how long would it take to reverse-engineer a Kearny-Fuchida
>> drive?
>

> or would that be too evil a thing to do to unsuspecting Scout players?

Nope, not too evil. They're just happy to have survived character
generation. They deserve what they get.

> hmm... guess i need to find a simple way to overlay the Mechwarrior
> starmap over the Third Imperium... and watch the "great land rush" as
> the major powers expand past the old borders of Charted Space... :)
>
> or maybe rescale the Spacemaster starmap 10-15x larger to get some
> 'interesting' aliens to interact with... ;)
>
> or would that be too evil a thing to do to unsuspecting Scout players?
>
>

Speaking of, I assume someone has done this, is the stellar density
"ground scale" comparable in BT and Traveller? Or Star Trek?

One game's parsec or light year may not work exactly the same in getting
to another location as another game's.

> Let alone all the competition for the drive.  It is capable of up to
> Jump-9, can be charged by 1% Earth ambient sunlight in 1 week using a sail
> no more than 4 square kilometers in area, can travel through a Jump no-go
> zone (first jump was from Sol's nadir to zenith point, aka through the Sol
> jump limit), and arrives effectively instantaneously (i.e. no spending 1
> week in Jump space).
>
> The problem is you need something to go from the 10 AU limit around the
> star to the planet, until you start plotting Pirate Points (places where
> gravity is low enough between a planet and star, or planet and moon, aka
> L1). Theoretically the 10 day trip could be handled via Traveller Jump
> drive, though BT engines are far more efficient (a 1900 ton Dropship only
> burns 18.4 tons of fuel while performing a 1G acceleration for 10 days)
>
> The civilian version of the Battletech FTL drive takes up 95% of the
> mounting ship's mass, while the military version takes up just under 50%
> of the mounting ship's mass.  Battle riders can be attached to it (and are
> on the civilian version) but they have to have the 'antenna' going through
> their hull to allow the FTL field to encompass and transport them.  If you
> try that with a standard Traveller Battle Rider, it won't make the trip.
>
> As to Reverse-engineering time, a planet was able to start with 20th
> century tech, develop the theory for it ~40 years later, and develop the
> drive 90 years later.  Since the Imperial world knows the drive is
> possible, they can shave a lot of time off that schedule. They'll also
> see references in the computer about HPGs (Jump-15 transmission radius,
> again instantaneous), and the BT weapons will be obscene in damage (IIRC
> the estimate of 1 pt of damage melting up to 62.5 kilos of steel resulting
> in ~55 MJ/point of damage is very conservative)
>
> Todd Kes
>

Yeah, Comstar did control the communications and still does in the game
universe. Take Terra and you can pretty much shut the system down, or at
least tie it up between states.

The main problem BT will have is a simple one: For most of the Battletech
timeline? There's no credible navy fielded by anyone. That's right, no
major power has a navy that could stand up to an Imperial CRURON. And what
happens when the powers began to build warships? The new line developer
decided "I don't like warships! Or those nasty clans" and touched off a
genocidal war from a bunch of religious nuts that nerfed everyone. (Not to
mention most of the major powers turned major elements of their militaries
and territory over to a outsider messiah, John Connor like figure with a
cipher like background who saved the Inner Sphere from these nuts, Sorry
gang, could we see the Imperium, it's successor states, the Regency or the
RC being that silly? Um...no. I can almost imagine the words Pat Ritter or
Hammer Lathrop would use for such an idea...let alone Strephon). So yeah,
by the time the Inner Sphere is building warships, which are going to get
wacked at long range by PA and Meson fire, the Imperium is at the gates of
at least two Successor State capitols playing "Let's make a unconditional
surrender".

Jason

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Craige Cook <>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> It seemed to me when I was playing a lot of BT during my early to mid
> twenties, that BT tech level was universally lower than high stellar tech
> in Trav. I don't have the BT books any longer (having sold them on in a
> hugh ebay sale many years ago) but from memory BT seemed to range from
> about TL 9-11 in comparative Traveller terms.
>
> WHen I tried to build a BT robot in traveller a long tie ago using MT
> rules it ended up being about 30-40 meters tall and with greatly improved
> sensors and weaponry cf the original BT mechs. I probably still have it
> here somewhere...
>
> I remember one Mechwarrior game in BT in which two Clan mech pilots were
> on patrol in two Mat Cats. One Mad Cat had PPCs and SRM 6s. The other one
> had Large Lasers and LRM15s and was low on ammo. THey had just finished a
> battle with an inner sphere lance light lance which was a no contest.
> However one of the Mat Cats had some armor damage. So the pilot was trying
> to fix it "in the field'. The Mad Cat on watch detected two squads of
> elementals in battle suits incoming. He had about four rounds to finish his
> repairs and on the last round possible he finished attaching the new armor
> and jumped into his cockpit and fired two SRM6s turning the 6 angry
> elementals into just so much smoking molten battle casualties. THat made us
> smile.
>
>
>
> Enjoy!
>
>
> Craige Cook
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
>
>
> To:
> <>
> Cc:
>
> Sent:
> Sun, 15 Jul 2012 04:36:32 -0500 (CDT)
>
> Subject:
> Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Battletech Jumpship in the Imperium
>
>
>
>
> Without more analysis of why BT chose the ranges it did, I might not
> approach it that way, because published SF combat ranges owe not much to
> physics and a lot more to an arbitrary editorial decision, ASSUMING that
> the BT and Traveller universes are assumed to be of a comparable tech
> level. Given the similar size of their inhabited areas, I would assume
> they are intended to be about the same TL, as ability to expand out to be
> proportional to TL and it sounds like both universes are about the same
> order of magnitude.
>
> The only reason Traveller laser ranges were as (unrealistically) long as
> they were is because someone in CT simply said they were, and the only
> reason that their FC could control them out that far is that they had to.
> Star Trek space combat ranges are also extremely short. I think I'd be
> inclined to try to normalize the ranges of all the universes around what
> they say standard operational laser range is, ensure that they are all
> getting about the same power:damage ratio, and ensure that one or more of
> them is not benefitting from artificially inflated power density, and then
> rationalize them out from that common baseline. Otherwise the three
> radically different game universe assumptions could interact
> "unrealistically."
>
> Either that or work out that the BT universe represents a consistently
> lowish Traveller TL and let them get thrashed for being a bunch of
> low-tech rubes. Has anyone here done any analysis to see if BT does seem
> to fit into an established Traveller TL? Or is it maybe higher in some
> areas and lower in others?
>
> But it is true that the laws of physics in the Traveller universe prevent
> giant rock-em-sock-em robots from working, so maybe the mechs that the BT
> ships bring with them would disappear into puffs of smoke, or transmute
> into giant amusement park rides.
>
> > Battletech's Inner Sphere is ~1000 ly wide, or about ~300 parsecs. The 3I
> > is a bit larger. Of course, BT is a bit shorter in range than 3I, where
> > capital scale beam weaponry has a maximum effective range (IIRC) of ~540
> > km.
> >
> > So the players in their ship will be able to dance around outside a BT
> > ship's range easily. The problem is if the BT force gets a few 3I
> > targeting systems, and integrates the two. A small laser is effectively a
> > ~160 MJ weapon that can fire once every minute (in Space, on the ground
> it
> > can fire once every 10 seconds).
>
> >
> > So treat them as Brutes, where they don't hit that often, but when they
> do
> > hit the players are going to be staring at you in shock.
> >
> > Todd Kes
> >
> > --- On Sat, 7/14/12, userbimbob wrote:
> > hmm... guess i need to find a simple way to overlay the Mechwarrior
> > starmap over the Third Imperium... and watch the "great land rush" as
> the
> > major powers expand past the old borders of Charted Space... :)
> >
> > or maybe rescale the Spacemaster starmap 10-15x larger to get some
> > 'interesting' aliens to interact with.. ;)
> >
> > or would that be too evil a thing to do to unsuspecting Scout players?
> >
>
>
>

Craige--

> It seemed to me when I was playing a lot of BT during my early to mid
> twenties, that BT tech level was universally lower than high stellar
> tech in Trav. I don't have the BT books any longer (having sold them
> on in a hugh ebay sale many years ago) but from memory BT seemed to
> range from about TL 9-11 in comparative Traveller terms.

That was sort of my sense of it as well. Would you say that applies to the
old governing tech that they can't maintain anymore, or only to the tech
they can keep up now? I think the difference between those two is mostly
just a handwave, but I'm not as familiar with it as you probably are.

> WHen I tried to build a BT robot in traveller a long tie ago using MT
> rules it ended up being about 30-40 meters tall and with greatly
> improved sensors and weaponry cf the original BT mechs. I probably
> still have it here somewhere...

Traveller has always been very serious about sensors and weapons ranges.
Makes it inherently less cinematic than other games (BT) or universes
(Star Trek, Star Wars), but arguably more "realistic."

> I remember one Mechwarrior game in BT in which two Clan mech pilots
> were on patrol in two Mat Cats. One Mad Cat had PPCs and SRM 6s. The
> other one had Large Lasers and LRM15s and was low on ammo. THey had
> just finished a battle with an inner sphere lance light lance which
> was a no contest. However one of the Mat Cats had some armor damage.
> So the pilot was trying to fix it "in the field'. The Mad Cat on watch
> detected two squads of elementals in battle suits incoming. He had
> about four rounds to finish his repairs and on the last round possible
> he finished attaching the new armor and jumped into his cockpit and
> fired two SRM6s turning the 6 angry elementals into just so much
> smoking molten battle casualties. THat made us smile.

Which is an excellent reminder that, all of the endless discussions about
comparative tech aside, what is really important about any of these games
is the game experience. A sufficiently clean system that allows you to
figure out those actions quickly, roleplay and roll-play them, and get an
exciting result.

Dave

BT had a different deal with its players than Traveller did. BT would dole
out a new class of technology every few years and call it "Clan Tech" or
whatever, and a new set of maps with the lines redrawn in a strangely
far-too-orderly fashion. BT was very stage-managed, which on the one hand
was preferable to the lack of management GDW exerted in MT, but still felt
far too heavy-handed to me.

If GDW had done something like that, the Traveller fans would have said,
"Yeah, we already designed that stuff, and you did it wrong." The BT fans
mostly said, "Cool!" Nice work if you can get it.

I always had a hard time reconciling the statement that these mechs were
so valuable and irreplaceable and unmaintainable, and yet everyone would
go out and spend them like water, and all of the lines on the maps would
move in such an orderly fashion. The line developer's position made sense
in that FASA knew that the entire point behind the game was setting up all
of the mech miniatures, closing to point-blank range, and having a brawl.
Everything else was stage dressing to get to that point. No point in doing
the realistic thing and destroying enemy ships before they got a chance to
deploy their mechs, because that negated the entire reason for the game's
existence. Traveller had a big picture POV, while BT was very much
stylized. But if you liked it, you liked it.

> Yeah, Comstar did control the communications and still does in the game
> universe. Take Terra and you can pretty much shut the system down, or at
> least tie it up between states.
>
> The main problem BT will have is a simple one: For most of the Battletech
> timeline? There's no credible navy fielded by anyone. That's right, no
> major power has a navy that could stand up to an Imperial CRURON. And what
> happens when the powers began to build warships? The new line developer
> decided "I don't like warships! Or those nasty clans" and touched off a
> genocidal war from a bunch of religious nuts that nerfed everyone. (Not to
> mention most of the major powers turned major elements of their militaries
> and territory over to a outsider messiah, John Connor like figure with a
> cipher like background who saved the Inner Sphere from these nuts, Sorry
> gang, could we see the Imperium, it's successor states, the Regency or the
> RC being that silly? Um...no. I can almost imagine the words Pat Ritter or
> Hammer Lathrop would use for such an idea...let alone Strephon). So yeah,
> by the time the Inner Sphere is building warships, which are going to get
> wacked at long range by PA and Meson fire, the Imperium is at the gates of
> at least two Successor State capitols playing "Let's make a unconditional
> surrender".
>
> Jason
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Craige Cook
> <>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> It seemed to me when I was playing a lot of BT during my early to mid
>> twenties, that BT tech level was universally lower than high stellar
>> tech
>> in Trav. I don't have the BT books any longer (having sold them on in a
>> hugh ebay sale many years ago) but from memory BT seemed to range from
>> about TL 9-11 in comparative Traveller terms.
>>
>> WHen I tried to build a BT robot in traveller a long tie ago using MT
>> rules it ended up being about 30-40 meters tall and with greatly
>> improved
>> sensors and weaponry cf the original BT mechs. I probably still have it
>> here somewhere...
>>
>> I remember one Mechwarrior game in BT in which two Clan mech pilots were
>> on patrol in two Mat Cats. One Mad Cat had PPCs and SRM 6s. The other
>> one
>> had Large Lasers and LRM15s and was low on ammo. THey had just finished
>> a
>> battle with an inner sphere lance light lance which was a no contest.
>> However one of the Mat Cats had some armor damage. So the pilot was
>> trying
>> to fix it "in the field'. The Mad Cat on watch detected two squads of
>> elementals in battle suits incoming. He had about four rounds to finish
>> his
>> repairs and on the last round possible he finished attaching the new
>> armor
>> and jumped into his cockpit and fired two SRM6s turning the 6 angry
>> elementals into just so much smoking molten battle casualties. THat made
>> us
>> smile.
>>
>>
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>>
>> Craige Cook
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:
>>
>>
>> To:
>> <>
>> Cc:
>>
>> Sent:
>> Sun, 15 Jul 2012 04:36:32 -0500 (CDT)
>>
>> Subject:
>> Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Battletech Jumpship in the Imperium
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Without more analysis of why BT chose the ranges it did, I might not
>> approach it that way, because published SF combat ranges owe not much to
>> physics and a lot more to an arbitrary editorial decision, ASSUMING that
>> the BT and Traveller universes are assumed to be of a comparable tech
>> level. Given the similar size of their inhabited areas, I would assume
>> they are intended to be about the same TL, as ability to expand out to
>> be
>> proportional to TL and it sounds like both universes are about the same
>> order of magnitude.
>>
>> The only reason Traveller laser ranges were as (unrealistically) long as
>> they were is because someone in CT simply said they were, and the only
>> reason that their FC could control them out that far is that they had
>> to.
>> Star Trek space combat ranges are also extremely short. I think I'd be
>> inclined to try to normalize the ranges of all the universes around what
>> they say standard operational laser range is, ensure that they are all
>> getting about the same power:damage ratio, and ensure that one or more
>> of
>> them is not benefitting from artificially inflated power density, and
>> then
>> rationalize them out from that common baseline. Otherwise the three
>> radically different game universe assumptions could interact
>> "unrealistically."
>>
>> Either that or work out that the BT universe represents a consistently
>> lowish Traveller TL and let them get thrashed for being a bunch of
>> low-tech rubes. Has anyone here done any analysis to see if BT does seem
>> to fit into an established Traveller TL? Or is it maybe higher in some
>> areas and lower in others?
>>
>> But it is true that the laws of physics in the Traveller universe
>> prevent
>> giant rock-em-sock-em robots from working, so maybe the mechs that the
>> BT
>> ships bring with them would disappear into puffs of smoke, or transmute
>> into giant amusement park rides.
>>
>> > Battletech's Inner Sphere is ~1000 ly wide, or about ~300 parsecs. The
>> 3I
>> > is a bit larger. Of course, BT is a bit shorter in range than 3I,
>> where
>> > capital scale beam weaponry has a maximum effective range (IIRC) of
>> ~540
>> > km.
>> >
>> > So the players in their ship will be able to dance around outside a BT
>> > ship's range easily. The problem is if the BT force gets a few 3I
>> > targeting systems, and integrates the two. A small laser is
>> effectively a
>> > ~160 MJ weapon that can fire once every minute (in Space, on the
>> ground
>> it
>> > can fire once every 10 seconds).
>>
>> >
>> > So treat them as Brutes, where they don't hit that often, but when
>> they
>> do
>> > hit the players are going to be staring at you in shock.
>> >
>> > Todd Kes
>> >
>> > --- On Sat, 7/14/12, userbimbob wrote:
>> > hmm... guess i need to find a simple way to overlay the Mechwarrior
>> > starmap over the Third Imperium... and watch the "great land rush" as
>> the
>> > major powers expand past the old borders of Charted Space... :)
>> >
>> > or maybe rescale the Spacemaster starmap 10-15x larger to get some
>> > 'interesting' aliens to interact with.. ;)
>> >
>> > or would that be too evil a thing to do to unsuspecting Scout players?
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

Honestly I think Traveller vs BT comes down to different target audience.

Traveller is more open source in that it provides you the tools to create
your technology you want for a setting with having a sort of hand wavy back
drop for the setting.

Where as BT is a setting in a box in which you open it and use toy mechs to
blow each other up. ala war game.

BT started its life as a war game not an RPG and I think Traveller did. All
things after those choices are informed by these facts.

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM, <> wrote:

> **
>
>
> BT had a different deal with its players than Traveller did. BT would dole
> out a new class of technology every few years and call it "Clan Tech" or
> whatever, and a new set of maps with the lines redrawn in a strangely
> far-too-orderly fashion. BT was very stage-managed, which on the one hand
> was preferable to the lack of management GDW exerted in MT, but still felt
> far too heavy-handed to me.
>
> If GDW had done something like that, the Traveller fans would have said,
> "Yeah, we already designed that stuff, and you did it wrong." The BT fans
> mostly said, "Cool!" Nice work if you can get it.
>
> I always had a hard time reconciling the statement that these mechs were
> so valuable and irreplaceable and unmaintainable, and yet everyone would
> go out and spend them like water, and all of the lines on the maps would
> move in such an orderly fashion. The line developer's position made sense
> in that FASA knew that the entire point behind the game was setting up all
> of the mech miniatures, closing to point-blank range, and having a brawl.
> Everything else was stage dressing to get to that point. No point in doing
> the realistic thing and destroying enemy ships before they got a chance to
> deploy their mechs, because that negated the entire reason for the game's
> existence. Traveller had a big picture POV, while BT was very much
> stylized. But if you liked it, you liked it.
>
>
> > Yeah, Comstar did control the communications and still does in the game
> > universe. Take Terra and you can pretty much shut the system down, or at
> > least tie it up between states.
> >
> > The main problem BT will have is a simple one: For most of the Battletech
> > timeline? There's no credible navy fielded by anyone. That's right, no
> > major power has a navy that could stand up to an Imperial CRURON. And
> what
> > happens when the powers began to build warships? The new line developer
> > decided "I don't like warships! Or those nasty clans" and touched off a
> > genocidal war from a bunch of religious nuts that nerfed everyone. (Not
> to
> > mention most of the major powers turned major elements of their
> militaries
> > and territory over to a outsider messiah, John Connor like figure with a
> > cipher like background who saved the Inner Sphere from these nuts, Sorry
> > gang, could we see the Imperium, it's successor states, the Regency or
> the
> > RC being that silly? Um...no. I can almost imagine the words Pat Ritter
> or
> > Hammer Lathrop would use for such an idea...let alone Strephon). So yeah,
> > by the time the Inner Sphere is building warships, which are going to get
> > wacked at long range by PA and Meson fire, the Imperium is at the gates
> of
> > at least two Successor State capitols playing "Let's make a unconditional
> > surrender".
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Craige Cook
> > <>wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> It seemed to me when I was playing a lot of BT during my early to mid
> >> twenties, that BT tech level was universally lower than high stellar
> >> tech
> >> in Trav. I don't have the BT books any longer (having sold them on in a
> >> hugh ebay sale many years ago) but from memory BT seemed to range from
> >> about TL 9-11 in comparative Traveller terms.
> >>
> >> WHen I tried to build a BT robot in traveller a long tie ago using MT
> >> rules it ended up being about 30-40 meters tall and with greatly
> >> improved
> >> sensors and weaponry cf the original BT mechs. I probably still have it
> >> here somewhere...
> >>
> >> I remember one Mechwarrior game in BT in which two Clan mech pilots were
> >> on patrol in two Mat Cats. One Mad Cat had PPCs and SRM 6s. The other
> >> one
> >> had Large Lasers and LRM15s and was low on ammo. THey had just finished
> >> a
> >> battle with an inner sphere lance light lance which was a no contest.
> >> However one of the Mat Cats had some armor damage. So the pilot was
> >> trying
> >> to fix it "in the field'. The Mad Cat on watch detected two squads of
> >> elementals in battle suits incoming. He had about four rounds to finish
> >> his
> >> repairs and on the last round possible he finished attaching the new
> >> armor
> >> and jumped into his cockpit and fired two SRM6s turning the 6 angry
> >> elementals into just so much smoking molten battle casualties. THat made
> >> us
> >> smile.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Enjoy!
> >>
> >>
> >> Craige Cook
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From:
> >>
> >>
> >> To:
> >> <>
> >> Cc:
> >>
> >> Sent:
> >> Sun, 15 Jul 2012 04:36:32 -0500 (CDT)
> >>
> >> Subject:
> >> Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Battletech Jumpship in the Imperium
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Without more analysis of why BT chose the ranges it did, I might not
> >> approach it that way, because published SF combat ranges owe not much to
> >> physics and a lot more to an arbitrary editorial decision, ASSUMING that
> >> the BT and Traveller universes are assumed to be of a comparable tech
> >> level. Given the similar size of their inhabited areas, I would assume
> >> they are intended to be about the same TL, as ability to expand out to
> >> be
> >> proportional to TL and it sounds like both universes are about the same
> >> order of magnitude.
> >>
> >> The only reason Traveller laser ranges were as (unrealistically) long as
> >> they were is because someone in CT simply said they were, and the only
> >> reason that their FC could control them out that far is that they had
> >> to.
> >> Star Trek space combat ranges are also extremely short. I think I'd be
> >> inclined to try to normalize the ranges of all the universes around what
> >> they say standard operational laser range is, ensure that they are all
> >> getting about the same power:damage ratio, and ensure that one or more
> >> of
> >> them is not benefitting from artificially inflated power density, and
> >> then
> >> rationalize them out from that common baseline. Otherwise the three
> >> radically different game universe assumptions could interact
> >> "unrealistically."
> >>
> >> Either that or work out that the BT universe represents a consistently
> >> lowish Traveller TL and let them get thrashed for being a bunch of
> >> low-tech rubes. Has anyone here done any analysis to see if BT does seem
> >> to fit into an established Traveller TL? Or is it maybe higher in some
> >> areas and lower in others?
> >>
> >> But it is true that the laws of physics in the Traveller universe
> >> prevent
> >> giant rock-em-sock-em robots from working, so maybe the mechs that the
> >> BT
> >> ships bring with them would disappear into puffs of smoke, or transmute
> >> into giant amusement park rides.
> >>
> >> > Battletech's Inner Sphere is ~1000 ly wide, or about ~300 parsecs. The
> >> 3I
> >> > is a bit larger. Of course, BT is a bit shorter in range than 3I,
> >> where
> >> > capital scale beam weaponry has a maximum effective range (IIRC) of
> >> ~540
> >> > km.
> >> >
> >> > So the players in their ship will be able to dance around outside a BT
> >> > ship's range easily. The problem is if the BT force gets a few 3I
> >> > targeting systems, and integrates the two. A small laser is
> >> effectively a
> >> > ~160 MJ weapon that can fire once every minute (in Space, on the
> >> ground
> >> it
> >> > can fire once every 10 seconds).
> >>
> >> >
> >> > So treat them as Brutes, where they don't hit that often, but when
> >> they
> >> do
> >> > hit the players are going to be staring at you in shock.
> >> >
> >> > Todd Kes
> >> >
> >> > --- On Sat, 7/14/12, userbimbob wrote:
> >> > hmm... guess i need to find a simple way to overlay the Mechwarrior
> >> > starmap over the Third Imperium... and watch the "great land rush" as
> >> the
> >> > major powers expand past the old borders of Charted Space... :)
> >> >
> >> > or maybe rescale the Spacemaster starmap 10-15x larger to get some
> >> > 'interesting' aliens to interact with.. ;)
> >> >
> >> > or would that be too evil a thing to do to unsuspecting Scout players?
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>

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

There you go, cutting to the chase again... :-)

> Honestly I think Traveller vs BT comes down to different target audience.
>
> Traveller is more open source in that it provides you the tools to create
> your technology you want for a setting with having a sort of hand wavy
> back
> drop for the setting.
>
> Where as BT is a setting in a box in which you open it and use toy mechs
> to
> blow each other up. ala war game.
>
> BT started its life as a war game not an RPG and I think Traveller did.
> All
> things after those choices are informed by these facts.
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM, <> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> BT had a different deal with its players than Traveller did. BT would
>> dole
>> out a new class of technology every few years and call it "Clan Tech" or
>> whatever, and a new set of maps with the lines redrawn in a strangely
>> far-too-orderly fashion. BT was very stage-managed, which on the one
>> hand
>> was preferable to the lack of management GDW exerted in MT, but still
>> felt
>> far too heavy-handed to me.
>>
>> If GDW had done something like that, the Traveller fans would have said,
>> "Yeah, we already designed that stuff, and you did it wrong." The BT
>> fans
>> mostly said, "Cool!" Nice work if you can get it.
>>
>> I always had a hard time reconciling the statement that these mechs were
>> so valuable and irreplaceable and unmaintainable, and yet everyone would
>> go out and spend them like water, and all of the lines on the maps would
>> move in such an orderly fashion. The line developer's position made
>> sense
>> in that FASA knew that the entire point behind the game was setting up
>> all
>> of the mech miniatures, closing to point-blank range, and having a
>> brawl.
>> Everything else was stage dressing to get to that point. No point in
>> doing
>> the realistic thing and destroying enemy ships before they got a chance
>> to
>> deploy their mechs, because that negated the entire reason for the
>> game's
>> existence. Traveller had a big picture POV, while BT was very much
>> stylized. But if you liked it, you liked it.
>>
>>