04-25-2019, 12:14 PM | #21 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Cracking water in TRAVELLER
Not necessarily. One thing you can do that's pretty simple is limit the number of a particular module (drive, in this case) based on ship size.
|
04-25-2019, 01:08 PM | #22 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Cracking water in TRAVELLER
Quote:
The GT 500 cubic feet displacement ton and 5'x5'x10' deck plan square are a much better match to the actual dimensions of 1000kg of liquid hydrogen. DGP changed the value of the dt to match the deckplan square rather than the actual defined value. |
|
04-25-2019, 01:46 PM | #23 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Cracking water in TRAVELLER
I suspect the *original* scaling of traveller was 5'x5'x10' squares, something that started out metric would probably use either 1m squares or 2m squares, but 5' is 1.524m, so if you wanted to turn 5' square maps metric with minimal change, you use 1.5m squares.
|
04-25-2019, 06:10 PM | #24 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Cracking water in TRAVELLER
Many ship designs have only 1 module of each drive. Two at most. So the effect would be only to prohibit very specialized designs for large ships.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
12-23-2019, 09:25 PM | #25 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here .
|
Re: Cracking water in TRAVELLER
Quote:
As an object get scaled up its' mass and the stresses it imposes on its' self when under force rises much faster than structural strength and not only does it need to be built more heavily relative to its' size {which reduces available weight , volume and resource budget for everything else in a vehicle} but also increases the amount of maintenance required for its' size and complexity by a similarly logarithmic scale . Merely each time a capital spaceship accelerates , decelerates , turns/pivots or comes near a gravity well the frame would be under terrific strain that would add up over time which would force a polity run by sane people to be very deliberate and selective in their deploying of such ships . A mechanic that emulates this could serve . Now consider that just entering port and docking {and the inverse} a capital ship is like unto an epic saga that takes more preparation and planning than some set piece battles . Take a look at the difference in such operation between an Arleigh Burke and a Nimitz . It's like making breakfast for Twiggy verses victualing a herd of Oprah Winfreys . Just putting a Battleship to space along with its' small navy of a support fleet {another thing to consider} , might require a very good reason that must be first argued in congress by professional liars for a minimum of three days and four million dollars . Then think of the economics ; You can't afford many {comparatively} and should only deploy them massed unless you like the idea of losing them piecemeal {Bismark , Scharnhorst , Prince of Wales + Repulse , Yamato : even losing a couple might be crippling for a smaller Navy like Japan circa Battle of Tsushima} , however they can be only in one place at a time . Send them yonder , and not only are they no longer guarding their home port , but will take even longer to reach trouble if it appears on the opposite side of your territory than had you left them in port . They also each {and their hefty support fleet} cost a ransom just sitting in port , that will magnify substantially when they get under way and again post battle when you get the doctors bill .
__________________
7 out of 10 people like me , I'm not going to change for the other 3 ! Last edited by Mr Frost; 12-23-2019 at 09:27 PM. Reason: We helped a letter Y find its' Mummy . Awwwww |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|