I do recall some text towards the end of CT HGv2 stating that CT LBB2 could still be used to create valid ship designs & I also recall that, in some instances, it was advantageous to do so as fuel requirements were calculated by a different method.

p.s. I rationalized the differences by considering that CT HG was specifying military 'mil-spec' construction while CT LBB2 was concerned with civilian construction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Friday, October 11, 2019, 01:10:49 PM MST, Thomas RUX <xxxxxx@comcast.net> wrote:


Howdy Cian,

The CT LBB 5 HG 2e design process covers all the hull sizes listed in CT LBB 2's Standard Hull and Drive Potential Tables and expands Book 2's six hulls in the Standard Hulls Table and the four hulls on the Drive Potential Table. In CT LBB 5 HG 2e a 300 ton hull is one of the standard hulls with the Jump Drive, Maneuver Drive, and Power Plant made to fit the hull. In CT LBB 2 a Type M Drive's tonnage and cost is exactly the same for 400, 600, 800, 1,000, and 2,000 ton hulls.

I disagree that the writers assumed CT LBB 5 HG superseded CT LBB 2,  after using LBB 5 I stopped using LBB 2 since the design sequence could not design small craft and could design a 100 ton hull with smaller drives leaving more space open. While the intent of CT LBB 5  HG was not to supersede CT LBB 2 Starships the flexibility of Book 5 made designing hulls with Book less appealing.

Okay, to be honest I never really got the hang of using CT LBB 2 or CT LBB 5 HG 1979 for ship design. When I got a copy of CT LBB 5 HG 2e 1980 I stopped using both. I did check CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 but  stayed with HG 2e.

My time is up I have a 4 and almost 7 year old wanting to play games and other entertainment.

Tom Rux
On October 11, 2019 at 10:17 AM Cian Witherspoon <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:



On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 09:27 Phil Pugliese (via tml list) < xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
 
Well that means that the overall TL limit for J-max is violated in the 1st four examples.

AFAIK, the J-max for TL9 is ONE, for TL10 it's also ONE, for TL11 it is TWO, for TL12 it's THREE, for TL13 it's FOUR, for TL14 it's FIVE, & for TL15 it's SIX!

That's why the Zho's are limited to J5max & Vargr & SwordWorlders to J4max. (unless they can acquire foreign equip from the 3I or some other polity with a higher TLmax)

Gosh, Tom, you've managed to unearth a 'bug' that, it seems, no one has noticed for DECADES & DECADES!
 
Actually, I noticed this a while back and pointed it out to Jeff in a proposed addendum to “Build your own road”, and this has also been noted by Omer-Golan Joel of Stellagama publishing, who deliberately incorporated it into “Cepheus Light”. 
And the fact that all further publications until Mega Traveller (and I think some later adventures) did not make reference to the drive capability by TL table included in CT HG, combined with the explicit statement that the shipbuilding rules in CT LBB2 (and Starter Traveller and The Traveller Book) are good only up to 5000 tons, is the basis for my prior argument (See way up thread) that the TL limitations in High Guard are for custom drives rated for over 5000 tons (or possibly for drives larger than the builders TL). Of course, by the time of MT the Jump by TL limitations had become canon, but that was in the context of the 3I, and mostly by because writers just sort of assumed that High Guard superseded LBB2.

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com


 

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a