Thread: Starship design.

I haven't found my old ff&s book yet but was there some kind of hard policy on the number of hard points you could put on a ship? I know the standard was 1 per 100dt but I don't recall ever seeing it in ff&s.

I ask because i've always been of the opinion for venturing out into the wilds if the ship can fit, power and has the surface area to sustain 2 or 3 turrets per 100 tons why the hell not?

Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...

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 repealed, woo-hoo!"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.
>
>> I haven't found my old ff&s book yet but was there some kind of hard
>> policy on the number of hard points you could put on a ship? I know the
>> standard was 1 per 100dt but I don't recall ever seeing it in ff&s.
>>
>> I ask because i've always been of the opinion for venturing out into the
>> wilds if the ship can fit, power and has the surface area to sustain 2
>> or
>> 3 turrets per 100 tons why the hell not?
>>
>> Derek Stanley
>> Sent from my iPhone...
>>
>
>
>

wrote:
> 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 rule repealed, woo-hoo!"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.

I am sure both are true. I know the jump limit was removed because
of the 30 dton Jump Boats the Regency used.

In particular the second one really caused problems for 1248, as Martin
was compelled to use CT rules with it, and those limits were in effect
there. He had to handwave out those Jump Boats without invalidating
them. (Basically, the explanation is that you can indeed jump with
ships smaller than 100 dton, but the odds of failure increase a lot. It
is only done by the desperate (aka the Regency) or the insane.

Mike West

Right, and it was because of those Regency boats that I knew that part was
right.

I didn't call them X-boats anymore, to distinguish them from the
100-tonners. I think I was calling it "the Web" or "X-web" or something,
because all worlds were now connected, not just those on the X-lanes.

One of the reasons for relaxing the 100-ton limit was the Jump torps from
the CT adventure Leviathan, which I always liked. But those were quietly
disbarred from CT and MT over the years.

> In particular the second one really caused problems for 1248, as Martin
> was compelled to use CT rules with it, and those limits were in effect
> there.

As Mal Reynolds has said, "Huh."

I wonder if Mal Reynolds ever said, "Well, IMTU..." :-)

Dave

> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I am sure both are true. I know the jump limit was removed because
> of the 30 dton Jump Boats the Regency used.
>
> In particular the second one really caused problems for 1248, as Martin
> was compelled to use CT rules with it, and those limits were in effect
> there. He had to handwave out those Jump Boats without invalidating
> them. (Basically, the explanation is that you can indeed jump with
> ships smaller than 100 dton, but the odds of failure increase a lot. It
> is only done by the desperate (aka the Regency) or the insane.
>
> Mike West
>
>
>

wrote:
> I didn't call them X-boats anymore, to distinguish them from the
> 100-tonners. I think I was calling it "the Web" or "X-web" or
> something, because all worlds were now connected, not just those
> on the X-lanes.

I'd have to check, but I believe it was "X-web". I made sure to
highlight it and noted its continuance where it remained. Though
the Jump-boats were replaced with proper 100 dton designs so
as to be safer.

> One of the reasons for relaxing the 100-ton limit was the Jump torps
> from the CT adventure Leviathan, which I always liked. But those were
> quietly disbarred from CT and MT over the years.

Personally, I was never that big of a fan of Jump torps. Opened too
many doors that probably didn't need opening. I just quietly ignored
that they had been published and paved over them.

> As Mal Reynolds has said, "Huh."
>
> I wonder if Mal Reynolds ever said, "Well, IMTU..." :-)

I imagine not, as he was a PC in someone else's TU!

Mike West

I don't believe we ever resurrected jump torps as something that small, as
I was a little concerned about letting stuff get too small, but I did like
the idea of being able to carry a jump courier about the size of a ship's
boat. IMTU, capital ships had tubes for their jump couriers and fired them
off with dispatches.

I wish someone could get Whedon to admit that he played Traveller. I mean,
what is he afraid of, that someone will think he's a geek, or that Marc
will sue him?

Although if Marc were like TSR and DJ (which he's not), that would be a
concern.

Did you know that the complaints in the DJ lawsuit were things like, "In
D&D, there is a magic spell, "cure light wounds," that can be used, with
the rolling of dice, to heal injuries, and in DD there is a skill, "first
aid" (or whatever) that can be used, with the rolling of dice, to heal
injuries, therefore DD violates D&D's copyright." Every RPG in the world
does that.

As Frank observed, if you took their suit seriously, no one in the world
could ever publish a wargame, because it came down to "rolling dice to
implement a result," and so depended upon the court's ignorance to get
taken seriously. The other thing was they kept talking about how the
"interlocking D logo" infringed on D & D, when D&D had never used
interlocking Ds. However, Gary did like the alliteration, and that was
present in both games. Basically what it came down to was, "Gary Gygax is
never allowed to work again except as an indentured servant to
what's-her-name the space guy heiress." Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon,
whichever.

Well, they got theirs, and got paved under by WOTC too.

> wrote:
>> I didn't call them X-boats anymore, to distinguish them from the
>> 100-tonners. I think I was calling it "the Web" or "X-web" or
>> something, because all worlds were now connected, not just those
>> on the X-lanes.
>
> I'd have to check, but I believe it was "X-web". I made sure to
> highlight it and noted its continuance where it remained. Though
> the Jump-boats were replaced with proper 100 dton designs so
> as to be safer.
>
>> One of the reasons for relaxing the 100-ton limit was the Jump torps
>> from the CT adventure Leviathan, which I always liked. But those were
>> quietly disbarred from CT and MT over the years.
>
> Personally, I was never that big of a fan of Jump torps. Opened too
> many doors that probably didn't need opening. I just quietly ignored
> that they had been published and paved over them.
>
>> As Mal Reynolds has said, "Huh."
>>
>> I wonder if Mal Reynolds ever said, "Well, IMTU..." :-)
>
> I imagine not, as he was a PC in someone else's TU!
>
> Mike West
>
>
>

Actually, I think that Marc would be pleased (and probably is) that
Traveller had a role in such a cool manifestation as Firefly/Serenity. He
wouldn't go after Whedon's Firefly money.

But Whedon is probably acting on good old CYA Legal Advice, which is not
unwise.

> I don't believe we ever resurrected jump torps as something that small, as
> I was a little concerned about letting stuff get too small, but I did like
> the idea of being able to carry a jump courier about the size of a ship's
> boat. IMTU, capital ships had tubes for their jump couriers and fired them
> off with dispatches.
>
> I wish someone could get Whedon to admit that he played Traveller. I mean,
> what is he afraid of, that someone will think he's a geek, or that Marc
> will sue him?
>
> Although if Marc were like TSR and DJ (which he's not), that would be a
> concern.
>
> Did you know that the complaints in the DJ lawsuit were things like, "In
> D&D, there is a magic spell, "cure light wounds," that can be used, with
> the rolling of dice, to heal injuries, and in DD there is a skill, "first
> aid" (or whatever) that can be used, with the rolling of dice, to heal
> injuries, therefore DD violates D&D's copyright." Every RPG in the world
> does that.
>
> As Frank observed, if you took their suit seriously, no one in the world
> could ever publish a wargame, because it came down to "rolling dice to
> implement a result," and so depended upon the court's ignorance to get
> taken seriously. The other thing was they kept talking about how the
> "interlocking D logo" infringed on D & D, when D&D had never used
> interlocking Ds. However, Gary did like the alliteration, and that was
> present in both games. Basically what it came down to was, "Gary Gygax is
> never allowed to work again except as an indentured servant to
> what's-her-name the space guy heiress." Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon,
> whichever.
>
> Well, they got theirs, and got paved under by WOTC too.
>
>
>> wrote:
>>> I didn't call them X-boats anymore, to distinguish them from the
>>> 100-tonners. I think I was calling it "the Web" or "X-web" or
>>> something, because all worlds were now connected, not just those
>>> on the X-lanes.
>>
>> I'd have to check, but I believe it was "X-web". I made sure to
>> highlight it and noted its continuance where it remained. Though
>> the Jump-boats were replaced with proper 100 dton designs so
>> as to be safer.
>>
>>> One of the reasons for relaxing the 100-ton limit was the Jump torps
>>> from the CT adventure Leviathan, which I always liked. But those were
>>> quietly disbarred from CT and MT over the years.
>>
>> Personally, I was never that big of a fan of Jump torps. Opened too
>> many doors that probably didn't need opening. I just quietly ignored
>> that they had been published and paved over them.
>>
>>> As Mal Reynolds has said, "Huh."
>>>
>>> I wonder if Mal Reynolds ever said, "Well, IMTU..." :-)
>>
>> I imagine not, as he was a PC in someone else's TU!
>>
>> Mike West
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

wrote:
> Actually, I think that Marc would be pleased (and probably is) that
> Traveller had a role in such a cool manifestation as Firefly/Serenity.
> He wouldn't go after Whedon's Firefly money.
>
> But Whedon is probably acting on good old CYA Legal Advice, which is
> not unwise.

Just to be clear, I have no knowledge that Firefly and Serenty were
inspired by Traveller. I believe Whedon has specifically denied such.
I was merely making a light-hearted comment in response to your
light-hearted comment.

Mike West

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:26 PM, <> wrote:

> 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!"

Yep they where gone.

But to be honest with power and surface area constraints building a ship
that had more than one ship scale weapon was difficult.
--
Evyn

I know what you mean, but Whedon has reportedly admitted that it was based
on a campaign in a major SF RPG, according to information here, although
the primary source is no longer available:

http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/13668/is-serenity-based-on-joss-whedons-game-of-traveller

And for all the obvious reasons, it HAS to be Traveller. And I still think
that the guys who made BSG were exposed to TNE.

I'm sorry for ruining your light-hearted reply to my light-hearted comment.

Although you're starting to sound like Joss paid you some plausibly
deniable hush money. :-)

"I can make love disappear, For my next trick I'll need a volunteer. Step
right up." <--Yes, I stole that quote from someone on this list, but now
it's stuck in my head.

> wrote:
>> Actually, I think that Marc would be pleased (and probably is) that
>> Traveller had a role in such a cool manifestation as Firefly/Serenity.
>> He wouldn't go after Whedon's Firefly money.
>>
>> But Whedon is probably acting on good old CYA Legal Advice, which is
>> not unwise.
>
> Just to be clear, I have no knowledge that Firefly and Serenty were
> inspired by Traveller. I believe Whedon has specifically denied such.
> I was merely making a light-hearted comment in response to your
> light-hearted comment.
>
> Mike West
>
>
>

Right. The effective consideration came back in surface area. It just
wasn't so clear and simple anymore.

The joys of gearheading.

> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:26 PM, <> wrote:
>
>> 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!"
>
>
> Yep they where gone.
>
> But to be honest with power and surface area constraints building a ship
> that had more than one ship scale weapon was difficult.
> --
> Evyn
>

Given Whedon's age and his general geekieness the idea that he was unaware of the game seems highly improbable. There are a number of things that clearly steer the Firefly verse away from traveller, primarill

Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...

On 2012-06-18, at 15:52, "Mike West" <> wrote:

>
> wrote:
> > Actually, I think that Marc would be pleased (and probably is) that
> > Traveller had a role in such a cool manifestation as Firefly/Serenity.
> > He wouldn't go after Whedon's Firefly money.
> >
> > But Whedon is probably acting on good old CYA Legal Advice, which is
> > not unwise.
>
> Just to be clear, I have no knowledge that Firefly and Serenty were
> inspired by Traveller. I believe Whedon has specifically denied such.
> I was merely making a light-hearted comment in response to your
> light-hearted comment.
>
> Mike West
>
>
>

God damn it.

Anyways the big thing is the single solar system verse which for me kind of sucked big time when it was revealed.

There's also the very heavy emphasis on earth culture, particularly china.

Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...

On 2012-06-18, at 16:26, DEREK STANLEY <> wrote:

> Given Whedon's age and his general geekieness the idea that he was unaware of the game seems highly improbable. There are a number of things that clearly steer the Firefly verse away from traveller, primarill
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPhone...
>
> On 2012-06-18, at 15:52, "Mike West" <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Actually, I think that Marc would be pleased (and probably is) that
>> > Traveller had a role in such a cool manifestation as Firefly/Serenity.
>> > He wouldn't go after Whedon's Firefly money.
>> >
>> > But Whedon is probably acting on good old CYA Legal Advice, which is
>> > not unwise.
>>
>> Just to be clear, I have no knowledge that Firefly and Serenty were
>> inspired by Traveller. I believe Whedon has specifically denied such.
>> I was merely making a light-hearted comment in response to your
>> light-hearted comment.
>>
>> Mike West
>>
>>
>
>

wrote:
> I know what you mean, but Whedon has reportedly admitted that it was
> based on a campaign in a major SF RPG, according to information here,
> although the primary source is no longer available: [deleted]

I could see that. In fact, the reason I think "Traveller" when I watch
Firefly is not the "low-tech/hi-tech" mix, "shotguns-in-space", and
things like that. It is more thematic. First, it is an obvious "Ethically
Challenged Merchant" campaign. The character mix is built exactly
like a group of PCs. Not all characters actually have to be PCs,
but they can be. But to top it all off, the thing is that they *act*
just like PCs.

> I'm sorry for ruining your light-hearted reply to my light-hearted
> comment.

You didn't. I just wanted to get my disclaimer in so that no one even
remotely thought I had any sort of knowledge on the situation.

> Although you're starting to sound like Joss paid you some plausibly
> deniable hush money. :-)

Geez, that would be *great*. I would *so* pass around the FUD on
this if I was actually paid to do it! Alas, I am not ...

Mike West

DEREK STANLEY wrote:
> Anyways the big thing is the single solar system verse which for me
> kind of sucked big time when it was revealed.
>
> There's also the very heavy emphasis on earth culture, particularly
> china.

Again, as I said in my response to Dave, the technology is not what
says, "Traveller". What says "Traveller" is the fact that it is obviously
an "Ethically Challenged Merchant" campaign and that the characters
act just like PCs in a Traveller game. Straight up. The other thing that
doesn't hurt is the general "low-tech/hi-tech" mixture where the
various worlds can have widely divergent technological levels.

But the setting particulars are definitely not Traveller. No FTL, no
aliens, no ancients. But it could very easily be an ATU with little to
no effort.

(And, yeah, that whole "single massive solar system" thing does suck.
Having that many habitable planets in a single solar system would be
impossibly hard to set up, even if you get to play God and put everything
exactly where you need it to be. I imagine it isn't even close to
"plausible" in its science.)

Mike West

I know what you mean, but Whedon has reportedly admitted that it was
> based on a campaign in a major SF RPG, according to information here,
> although the primary source is no longer available: [deleted]

I knew it was Traveller when Mal pushed the henchman into the ships engine.
Our group did the exact same thing one time.

Derek--

Damn digital devices!

Yeah, but those strike me as trappings, rather than core concepts, and
most of all, FEEL: free trader barely scratching by, living on the edge of
the law.

I never ran a campaign in the OTU, because I started in 78 when Merc came
out. By the time they started publishing 3I stuff, I already had my non-3I
universe established. I ran Annic Nova and Kinunir and Rescue on Ruie and
parts of Leviathan, but in my own universe. So it's easy for me to relate
to non-3I settings and still feel that Traveller universe gestalt. (Look,
I said, "gestalt.")

My universe had an Earthy flavor because it was based on generation ships,
like the Islands Sector (I think--to trailing from DofD).

But this is semi-arid speculation. Just one that I circle back to sometimes.

> God damn it.
>
> Anyways the big thing is the single solar system verse which for me kind
> of sucked big time when it was revealed.
>
> There's also the very heavy emphasis on earth culture, particularly china.
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPhone...
>
> On 2012-06-18, at 16:26, DEREK STANLEY <> wrote:
>
>> Given Whedon's age and his general geekieness the idea that he was
>> unaware of the game seems highly improbable. There are a number of
>> things that clearly steer the Firefly verse away from traveller,
>> primarill
>>
>> Derek Stanley
>> Sent from my iPhone...
>>
>> On 2012-06-18, at 15:52, "Mike West" <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Actually, I think that Marc would be pleased (and probably is) that
>>> > Traveller had a role in such a cool manifestation as
>>> Firefly/Serenity.
>>> > He wouldn't go after Whedon's Firefly money.
>>> >
>>> > But Whedon is probably acting on good old CYA Legal Advice, which is
>>> > not unwise.
>>>
>>> Just to be clear, I have no knowledge that Firefly and Serenty were
>>> inspired by Traveller. I believe Whedon has specifically denied such.
>>> I was merely making a light-hearted comment in response to your
>>> light-hearted comment.
>>>
>>> Mike West
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

(Laughing out loud)

Brilliant!

(Laughing out loud again)

"Ethically Challenged Merchant!"

That's what I will have said if I come back and write my last message in
another incarnation.

Your remark on the crew as PCs has me thinking: I wonder what the guy who
played the first engineer did to get kicked out of the group!

Dave

> wrote:
>> I know what you mean, but Whedon has reportedly admitted that it was
>> based on a campaign in a major SF RPG, according to information here,
>> although the primary source is no longer available: [deleted]
>
> I could see that. In fact, the reason I think "Traveller" when I watch
> Firefly is not the "low-tech/hi-tech" mix, "shotguns-in-space", and
> things like that. It is more thematic. First, it is an obvious "Ethically
> Challenged Merchant" campaign. The character mix is built exactly
> like a group of PCs. Not all characters actually have to be PCs,
> but they can be. But to top it all off, the thing is that they *act*
> just like PCs.
>
>> I'm sorry for ruining your light-hearted reply to my light-hearted
>> comment.
>
> You didn't. I just wanted to get my disclaimer in so that no one even
> remotely thought I had any sort of knowledge on the situation.
>
>> Although you're starting to sound like Joss paid you some plausibly
>> deniable hush money. :-)
>
> Geez, that would be *great*. I would *so* pass around the FUD on
> this if I was actually paid to do it! Alas, I am not ...
>
> Mike West
>
>
>

Derek--

I get excited and hit SEND, then realize I forgot to say something:

> Anyways the big thing is the single solar system verse which for me kind
> of sucked big time when it was revealed.

Yes, I thought, "Huh? What? Are you SURE?"

In the first episode when they go to "hard burn" and the bulbous firefly
butt lights up, I just assumed they went into jump. 90% of the time their
interplanetary passage was just like Traveller jump: a long period of
passage with no contact with outside world, but then there came the couple
exceptions, and I started wondering, "well, is this like Star Trek warp
drive?"

Then when I finally picked up all of the maps and charts from Quantum
Mechanix (I came late to Firefly as I do to so much of popular culture) I
thought some more, "Really? Really?"

Then when you look at all of the published BSG reboot stuff, it's the same
thing: giant extended systems with all kinds of entangled G-wells.
"Really? These planets haven't whanged into each other yet? Where are all
the asteroid belts from all of the hundreds of planets that have already
collided?"

"THIS IS CETI ALPHA V!!!"

So yes, I'm with you, I don't buy the stellar cartography.

But I still love the show. (Though not BSG very much.)

Dave

> God damn it.
>
> Anyways the big thing is the single solar system verse which for me kind
> of sucked big time when it was revealed.
>
> There's also the very heavy emphasis on earth culture, particularly china.
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPhone...

Charles--

> I knew it was Traveller when Mal pushed the henchman into the ships
> engine.
> Our group did the exact same thing one time.

Yeah, there are things that you just know in your gut.

Although whenever my PCs got funny like that I made them spend weeks on
the ground rebuilding their engines. It got them out of the habit of doing
stuff like that--with their own equipment.

Dave

As I recall from the unaired episodes you find out that the original engineer was something of a womanizer and he'd brought Kaylee back to the ship for a roll in the hammock. Sadly for him something went wrong with the ship and Kaylee fixed it better and faster than he could. Plus, he was kind of a usless turd.

Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...

On 2012-06-18, at 17:00, wrote:

> (Laughing out loud)
>
> Brilliant!
>
> (Laughing out loud again)
>
> "Ethically Challenged Merchant!"
>
> That's what I will have said if I come back and write my last message in
> another incarnation.
>
> Your remark on the crew as PCs has me thinking: I wonder what the guy who
> played the first engineer did to get kicked out of the group!
>
> Dave
>
> > wrote:
> >> I know what you mean, but Whedon has reportedly admitted that it was
> >> based on a campaign in a major SF RPG, according to information here,
> >> although the primary source is no longer available: [deleted]
> >
> > I could see that. In fact, the reason I think "Traveller" when I watch
> > Firefly is not the "low-tech/hi-tech" mix, "shotguns-in-space", and
> > things like that. It is more thematic. First, it is an obvious "Ethically
> > Challenged Merchant" campaign. The character mix is built exactly
> > like a group of PCs. Not all characters actually have to be PCs,
> > but they can be. But to top it all off, the thing is that they *act*
> > just like PCs.
> >
> >> I'm sorry for ruining your light-hearted reply to my light-hearted
> >> comment.
> >
> > You didn't. I just wanted to get my disclaimer in so that no one even
> > remotely thought I had any sort of knowledge on the situation.
> >
> >> Although you're starting to sound like Joss paid you some plausibly
> >> deniable hush money. :-)
> >
> > Geez, that would be *great*. I would *so* pass around the FUD on
> > this if I was actually paid to do it! Alas, I am not ...
> >
> > Mike West
> >
> >
> >
>
>

One thing that would have been interesting is using a surface area calculation for ships. So a larger vessel (say 2* each for L, W,and H), would have eight times the mass, and four times the surface area. This surface area would affect armor thickness (twice as thick), heat dissipation (effectively half the rate), jump fuel used (only four times as much), aso.

So you might have spherical ships that can handle lots of weapons being fired at them, due to their thicker hulls (minimum surface area per volume), needle shaped ships for higher Jump speeds (lower cross-section to Jump space), larger ships being more efficient for Jump fuel usage, etc.

Of course, you'd still have smaller ships because they can dissipate heat faster, can be made on an assembly line easier (reducing the price per), have a lower structural fraction needed (or can take higher accelerations), etc.

But at that point you are getting into GURPs ship design.

Todd Kes

--- On Mon, 6/18/12, Evyn MacDude wrote:
Yep they where gone.
But to be honest with power and surface area constraints building a ship that had more than one ship scale weapon was difficult. 
--
Evyn

One of the things I liked was that it allowed my cruisers to have a spinal
weapon and as many parallel mounts as could fit - probably a Solomani
innovation thatJ

It also allowed versions of those broken designs in MTs Ships to be built in
TNE for those that liked the big ships.

Antony

From: []
On Behalf Of Evyn MacDude
Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2012 7:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Starship design.

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:26 PM, <> wrote:

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!"

Yep they where gone.

But to be honest with power and surface area constraints building a ship
that had more than one ship scale weapon was difficult.

--
Evyn

_____

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2433/5076 - Release Date: 06/17/12

I've always been a big fan of ridiculously cramped ships for TNE or refits of old ships. I rather liked the idea of my exploration ships being a kind of nut to butt operation capable of slugging it out with mich larger ships.

I think I made a lot of use of hard point mounted missles that were left in orbit as overwatch sentries which would be recovered on the way out.

Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...
>

We never really dealt with heat dissipation, and I was never that
satisfied with construction times. Of course this is all proof that you
can always make a system even more complex than it already is. In reality,
natural selection via time available demonstrated that GDW was able to
publish a system (rock) that it could just about lift.

If I follow what you're saying about surface area, is going into more
depth about what configurations were best suited to various requirements.
That was kind of a two-edged sword, in that we liked the idea that players
could fiddle with the system as written to try to determine what was best.
Thus the notion of the "Top Laser" tournaments, analagous to the Trillion
Credit Squadron competitions.

Of course TCS revealed something that no one wanted, namely big ugly rocks
were best, and no one wants big ugly rocks, people want cool, sleek
spaceships. So beware letting people road test your system, they'll find
out things about it you didn't mean.

> One thing that would have been interesting is using a surface area
> calculation for ships. So a larger vessel (say 2* each for L, W,and H),
> would have eight times the mass, and four times the surface area. This
> surface area would affect armor thickness (twice as thick), heat
> dissipation (effectively half the rate), jump fuel used (only four times
> as much), aso.
>
> So you might have spherical ships that can handle lots of weapons being
> fired at them, due to their thicker hulls (minimum surface area per
> volume), needle shaped ships for higher Jump speeds (lower cross-section
> to Jump space), larger ships being more efficient for Jump fuel usage,
> etc.
>
> Of course, you'd still have smaller ships because they can dissipate heat
> faster, can be made on an assembly line easier (reducing the price per),
> have a lower structural fraction needed (or can take higher
> accelerations), etc.
>
> But at that point you are getting into GURPs ship design.
>
> Todd Kes
>
> --- On Mon, 6/18/12, Evyn MacDude wrote:
> Yep they where gone.
> But to be honest with power and surface area constraints building a ship
> that had more than one ship scale weapon was difficult. 
> --
> Evyn
>

Fire the wave motion gun!

Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...

On 2012-06-18, at 19:46, "Antony Farrell" <> wrote:

> One of the things I liked was that it allowed my cruisers to have a spinal weapon and as many parallel mounts as could fit – probably a Solomani innovation thatJ
>
> It also allowed versions of those broken designs in MTs Ships to be built in TNE for those that liked the big ships.
>
> Antony
>
>

We used to call this recycling since they then went through the fuel purification plant.

Antony

I knew it was Traveller when Mal pushed the henchman into the ships engine. Our group did the exact same thing one time.

There's the family of shows that codified the fascination with triple
turrets in space. It's like Victory at Sea happening again and again.

> Fire the wave motion gun!
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPhone...
>
> On 2012-06-18, at 19:46, "Antony Farrell" <>
> wrote:
>
>> One of the things I liked was that it allowed my cruisers to have a
>> spinal weapon and as many parallel mounts as could fit – probably a
>> Solomani innovation thatJ
>>
>> It also allowed versions of those broken designs in MTs Ships to be
>> built in TNE for those that liked the big ships.
>>
>> Antony
>>
>>
>