this falls in line with my thoughts somewhat on jump inclusions and why jump
drives are not permitted on (manned) ships under 100 tns. the (handwavium)
physics of jumpspace require a specific minimum of displacenment to
'guarantee' a safe jump. I pretty much end the debate with the players at
that point. the actual minimum might only be 87.659 tons, but who want to
volunteer to find out? it could also be explained as under 100Dtons, the
probability of jump inclusions grows greater than %1, thus being banned by
imperial decree, so, it might not be an actual physics limitation, it might
be that permits are simply not issued for building a starship under 100dTons
in any imperial affiliated shipyard. as for post imperium? perhaps the
rational of why you don't build starships under 100Dtons may have been
partially forgotten (well, it ain't never been done befour, so ther musta
been a reeson I guess.)
I have also used that same line of reasoning for the limit of 1 turret per
100 tons. that is a "CIVILIAN" limitation, not a technical limitation. That
being said, pure military ships in MTU are NOT canon. in MTU, I have once or
twice role played out permit acquisition for would be ship builders who
wanted to pack in more turrets per ton than imperial law allowed for a
'civilian' ship. it certainly helped that the individual in question was a
knight of the realm with 24 years of Naval service under the belt, AND had
successfully completed 2 merc tickets.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, James <> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In <>,
> "far_trader_mail" <far_trader_mail@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <>,
> Eamon Watters <eamonwatters@> wrote:
> > >
> > > How can it be errata for TNE? TNE specifically introduced a sub 100-ton
> jump-capable ship.
> > >
> >
> > The authors of such were taking the book at its literal without knowledge
> of, or ignoring same, the way Traveller jump drives work. So such designs
> also need to be noted as errata.
> >
> > I was certain when I read it (the 2m3 minimum size) when it was first
> published that it was errata. You'll note the TNE main book had no sub-100
> ton Starships and the example in FF&S uses a 100ton ship. Pretty glaring
> oversights IF the rule had really meant to be changed that much don't you
> think? Of course I don't blame anyone not passing familiar with prior
> Traveller canon on jump drives for missing it. And even an editor can be
> forgiven for missing it. It's a typo.
> >
> > Changing this would seriously change the whole nature of the default
> Traveller setting. Alternative tech may permit such, and I'd have no
> argument with such. But jump drives are the default tech, and they have to
> work the same way they always did before. In my opinion, and apparently
> Marc's as well which is good enough for me. If Marc has said it was an
> error, then it is. And all official designs (and effects) resulting from the
> error are likewise rendered illegitimate. Using one (or several) such
> published examples as proof it isn't an error is not logical since they are
> the result of the error. They and the consequences are at best part of a
> special sub-set of Alternate TU. An unintentional Alternate Official TU or
> something :-)
> >
> > Dan "far-trader" Burns
> >
>
> GDW was basically sans Marc during the TNE period, but indications at the
> time were that they DID know what they were doing by removing the 100-dton
> minimum. They went so far as to have a miniature of the "offending" design
> cast up by RAFM.
>
> Marc's opinion now notwithstanding, it was a conscious decision at the time
> by all public indications.
>
> That said...
>
> The 100-dton minimum is only odd in the context of Traveller because the
> game tends to dwell at the small end of ships to begin with. When we are
> used to the "default" being 200 to 400 tons, being told you can't go smaller
> than 100 seems arbitrary. Move your commerce default up to 2000-4000 dtons,
> and now that 100-dton scout looks "cute". Move the commerce default up above
> 10k dtons and the Scout becomes "that dangerous little contraption the Scout
> Service insists on calling a ship." I'm half convinced that the misjump
> rules are centered around the little stuff just as the commerce rules are,
> and that jumps are a LOT less risky as you get away from the tiny hulls that
> shouldn't be mounting jump drives even if the physics of jump allows them
> to.
>
>
>
--
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla