And a lot of that stuff was also related to the notion that the jump field
was a re-shapable energy field generated by the J-drive, and not something
generated directly by a grid embedded in the hull that followed the
contours of the hull as in DGP's SOG. Given the number of modular ships
already in Traveller and how cool the idea is, a reconfigurable field just
made more sense than a static grid, and to me was more interesting in
terms of all of the in game pseudo-physics you could play with.
> The reason I think we dropped the one HP per 100 tons is to deal with the
> modular ships, and the artificial distinction about what was its "true"
> displacement. Before you drop the modular piece? After? What if you modify
> a ship later? Is it its original displacement, or new displacement?
> Basically if you could make it fit within the mass and the new
> all-important surface area (which an earlier post touched on the
> importance of), have at it.
>
> Unless, as I said, I'm making that up. I think that was the case with the
> Victrix ships, which had one more hardpoint than the earlier rules would
> have allowed.
>
> The Victrix ships were supposed to look like Lamborghinis, by the way. Got
> to have cool rides for the SVs. Not everything they fly has to look like
> broken-down recovered antiques.
>
>> Actually, I shouldn't say, "I'm pretty sure," and then turn around and
>> say, "am I lying?"
>>
>> Let's pretend I said, "I THINK we deliberately..."
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure we deliberately removed the "only one hardpoint per 100
>>> displacement tons" rule, as well as the "no jump-capable ships below
>>> 100
>>> tons," but also did not really trumpet that in the rules. "Hey, rule
>>> repealed, woo-hoo!"
>>>
>>> Can anyone corroborate that? I could be wrong about the hardpoints, but
>>> I
>>> know I'm not about the 100 ton jump limit.
>>>
>>> We also established that you could hang other weapon stations on
>>> starships
>>> as well, not just the classic starship turrets.
>
>
>
>