Thread: Re: Clippers and Tigresses and spheres, oh my!

Gary--

And I forgot to say, "Hey, Gary," after having gone to all that trouble.
AND I forgot to respond to the Clipper thing.

Hey, Gary.

The RAFM metal clippers were nice, but done in metal, so it was hard to
get them to "snap together" temporarily because of the weight of the
metal, so plastic would have been better to accomplish the reconfigurable
point behind the Clippers.

My first year or two at GDW was at the height of our powers in terms of
cash in pocket, staff, etc., and there as a lot of talk about a Star
Vikings boardgame, plastic miniatures, etc. But many man-years of design,
development, marketing, and production effort got ultimately flushed down
the DJ effort which ended in court (or to be precise, "out of court
settlement") and trucks carting it all off to TSR where it was probably
all burned. And I say "flushed" because of the way it ended, not because
of the quality of the material, had it been allowed to exist.

May cause swelling, painful cramps, or bleeding from the eyes. Do not take
if you plan to get up tomorrow.

Dave

>> I've wanted to get that AHL for awhile. Plankwell doesn't interest me,
> though wish they had a Tigress.
>
>> I've always wanted a die-cast and plastic maggart clipper toy with
> removable modules. I bought a couple copies of the miniature to assemble
> with enough spare modules but I'm thinking larger scale
>
> Plankwell didn't interest me either, but from looking at the AA discussion
> boards, Tigress is the most common request. Me, I hate spherical ships.
> Spheres may be the most efficient way of enclosing volume, but they are
> the least efficient way of doing anything useful with the volume once you
> have it. When I was in college I had some friends who lived in a geodesic
> dome, which had a lot of wasted space, because when you put in a dresser
> or bookcase, its height would determine how far you could push it toward
> the wall, and so much of the single large room was crawlspace behind the
> furniture pushed in toward the center by where its tops intersected with
> the arc of the wall. All you can do in a ship is put your useable area as
> close to the center as possible and push your fuel tankage out to the
> sides to fill in all of the curve. The Merc Cruiser is a mess for that
> reason, and the Tigress would be the same way.
>
> In my opinion. Your mileage my vary. Tax and other fees applicable. May
> cause warts and sudden death. Consult your physician.
>
> Dave

They need to be glued don't they? I'm not finding any "snap" it
could be user error though. I love the variety and parallel mount
PAW on the weapons pack.

---
from my T989

wrote:


Gary--

And I forgot to say, "Hey, Gary," after having gone to all that
trouble.
AND I forgot to respond to the Clipper thing.

Hey, Gary.

The RAFM metal clippers were nice, but done in metal, so it was
hard to
get them to "snap together" temporarily because of the weight of
the
metal, so plastic would have been better to accomplish the
reconfigurable
point behind the Clippers.

My first year or two at GDW was at the height of our powers in
terms of
cash in pocket, staff, etc., and there as a lot of talk about a
Star
Vikings boardgame, plastic miniatures, etc. But many man-years of
design,
development, marketing, and production effort got ultimately
flushed down
the DJ effort which ended in court (or to be precise, "out of
court
settlement") and trucks carting it all off to TSR where it was
probably
all burned. And I say "flushed" because of the way it ended, not
because
of the quality of the material, had it been allowed to exist.

May cause swelling, painful cramps, or bleeding from the eyes. Do
not take
if you plan to get up tomorrow.

Dave

>> I've wanted to get that AHL for awhile. Plankwell doesn't
interest me,
> though wish they had a Tigress.
>
>> I've always wanted a die-cast and plastic maggart clipper toy
with
> removable modules. I bought a couple copies of the miniature to
assemble
> with enough spare modules but I'm thinking larger scale
>
> Plankwell didn't interest me either, but from looking at the AA
discussion
> boards, Tigress is the most common request. Me, I hate
spherical ships.
> Spheres may be the most efficient way of enclosing volume, but
they are
> the least efficient way of doing anything useful with the
volume once you
> have it. When I was in college I had some friends who lived in
a geodesic
> dome, which had a lot of wasted space, because when you put in
a dresser
> or bookcase, its height would determine how far you could push
it toward
> the wall, and so much of the single large room was crawlspace
behind the
> furniture pushed in toward the center by where its tops
intersected with
> the arc of the wall. All you can do in a ship is put your
useable area as
> close to the center as possible and push your fuel tankage out
to the
> sides to fill in all of the curve. The Merc Cruiser is a mess
for that
> reason, and the Tigress would be the same way.
>
> In my opinion. Your mileage my vary. Tax and other fees
applicable. May
> cause warts and sudden death. Consult your physician.
>
> Dave

You make an excellent point that I had forgotten. We did exactly that in
TNE, where there were some kind of starship capabilities that you couldn't
fit on just any old thing, because surface area is a requirement. To have
good PEMS sensors without having to erect the masts, you needed a ship
with at least one long axis, something spheres don't have.

I have never liked spheres, ever since spending time in that geodesic dome.

> Large spherical warships don't work in TNE either due to the surface area
> being so small for a given volume. Try fitting everything required on the
> surface of a Tigress for example. Something has to give. The spinal weapon
> compared to other configurations is also going to be shorter so range may
> be
> less as well.
>
> Technically looking at the illustrations of the Tigress they type is some
> sort of hybrid configuration - spherical/slab perhaps which will increase
> surface area a bit. Be interesting to see if people did TNE
> interpretations
> of the Tigress, and for that matter the old Voroshilef class and what
> trade
> offs were made.
>
> My version at
> http://www.skaran.net/bannerscampaign/equipment/craft/imperial/tigress.html
> Became J4 3G and lost its EM Masking due to surface area problems. In my
> version of the TU the Tigress was routinely known as 'Target 1" as with
> its
> large size and no EM Mask it stood out on sensors quite well.
>
> Antony
>
>
>