Yes the reason for 3G in my iteration of the Tigress was to fit as much in
as possible though as mentioned I may have another go at this. The problem
is you cannot really change the jump drive rating without doing damage to
the way these squadrons worked in FFW. My thought was it was preferable to
keep the strategic range even if it meant dropping the maneuver drives. This
is also why I listed designs as hybrid configurations - a sphere/slab in the
case of the Tigress SL. This was one way to increase surface area,
spherical battleships have a real problem with this. I'll also have a go at
the Voroshilef ignoring perhaps the ones with experimental TL16
Disintegrators.
As for maneuver drives it reminded me of WW1 British and German ships, in
general British BBs and BCs had bigger guns and were faster than their
German counterparts but also carried less armour. So yes a different design
philosophy.
Antony
From: []
On Behalf Of Master Uxi
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012 12:19 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Capital Ship Lineage of the Third Imperium
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Antony Farrell <>
wrote:
too have always pictured BCsas having roughly the same volume as a BB but
trading armour for maneuver drive.
I'm almost certainly going to appropriate the names you use for the Solomani
ships in particular, as Confederation designs and probably the general specs
(displacement tonnage, etc). I don't think it's really viable for ships
like the dreadnoughts to have such low acceleration which would be a huge
combat liability. I'd rather sacrifice armor and screens or even bring down
the spinal a bit since maneuver drive is one of the most important stats and
arguably more valuable than screens. Usually the first victim is the Jump
Drive, though.
Is that why you did the Tigress as 3G?
probably just difference base conceptions IYTU than mine. Would love to get
BR digitized (ideally in 3 dimensions) so we could do Top Laser.
as possible though as mentioned I may have another go at this. The problem
is you cannot really change the jump drive rating without doing damage to
the way these squadrons worked in FFW. My thought was it was preferable to
keep the strategic range even if it meant dropping the maneuver drives. This
is also why I listed designs as hybrid configurations - a sphere/slab in the
case of the Tigress SL. This was one way to increase surface area,
spherical battleships have a real problem with this. I'll also have a go at
the Voroshilef ignoring perhaps the ones with experimental TL16
Disintegrators.
As for maneuver drives it reminded me of WW1 British and German ships, in
general British BBs and BCs had bigger guns and were faster than their
German counterparts but also carried less armour. So yes a different design
philosophy.
Antony
From: []
On Behalf Of Master Uxi
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012 12:19 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Capital Ship Lineage of the Third Imperium
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Antony Farrell <>
wrote:
too have always pictured BCsas having roughly the same volume as a BB but
trading armour for maneuver drive.
I'm almost certainly going to appropriate the names you use for the Solomani
ships in particular, as Confederation designs and probably the general specs
(displacement tonnage, etc). I don't think it's really viable for ships
like the dreadnoughts to have such low acceleration which would be a huge
combat liability. I'd rather sacrifice armor and screens or even bring down
the spinal a bit since maneuver drive is one of the most important stats and
arguably more valuable than screens. Usually the first victim is the Jump
Drive, though.
Is that why you did the Tigress as 3G?
probably just difference base conceptions IYTU than mine. Would love to get
BR digitized (ideally in 3 dimensions) so we could do Top Laser.