Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Traveller

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-25-2019, 01:14 PM   #21
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Cracking water in TRAVELLER

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
For Spaceships you would have to add a modification factor after the design was complete.
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.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2019, 02:08 PM   #22
Mike Wightman
 
Mike Wightman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Cracking water in TRAVELLER

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Counter nitpick: CT maps were 2 1.5x1.5x3m squares per dton (13.5m^3).
Counter counter nitpick - with an allowance made for the extra area you should have on your deckplans.

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.
Mike Wightman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2019, 02:46 PM   #23
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Cracking water in TRAVELLER

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Wightman View Post
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.
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.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2019, 07:10 PM   #24
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Cracking water in TRAVELLER

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
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.
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
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2019, 10:25 PM   #25
Mr Frost
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here .
Default Re: Cracking water in TRAVELLER

Quote:
Originally Posted by hal View Post
I wasn't thinking along the lines of volume per se, but that in general, the larger ships tend to become more massive. If I'm to avoid the issues of ships being able to zip along lickety split - I need to have something similar to the limitations imposed by the original Traveller.

As I pointed out in a GURPS SPACESHIP thread elsewhere - I'd like to see it happen where the smaller ships by mass/volume end up being able to travel slightly faster than average, with larger heavier ships being slowed dramatically. This makes it such that heavy battle fleets are ponderously slow, but when they arrive, they settle things on the spot so to speak.

When you get right down to it, I'm thinking that unconsciously - I'm wishing I could emulate to some extent, the age of sail. Smaller ships can sort of skip along, but the larger ships can pile on more canvas to bear down on the really small ships. Frigates would end up with the sweet spot with both firepower and speed, but still unable to take on a ship of the line.

I largely suspect that Traveller would kind of stink in that kind of environment. :(
Some real world realities that might help begin with the square cube law :
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 10:27 PM. Reason: We helped a letter Y find its' Mummy . Awwwww
Mr Frost is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.