Re: [Spaceships] Your preferences regarding plausible/playable Reactionless Drives
I'll sometimes require a single "Fuel Tank" space to be taken for Fusion, Super Fusion and Antimatter reactors and any reactionless drives, but ignore fuel consumption unless dramatically important as a nod toward the various science fiction franchises that do the same. (Star Trek was the original inspiration.) Basically the "Fuel Tank" is miscellaneous power-related consumables which is assumed to be refilled either in normal operations (like by the "Buzzard ramscoops" on Star Trek), as a part of routine docking fees at a port or both.
It's my way of saying, "They're not REALLY reactionless, they're just super efficient."
__________________
The user formerly known as ciaran_skye.
__________________
Quirks: Doesn't proofread forum posts before clicking "Submit". [-1]
Quote:
|
"My mace speaks Goblin." Antoni Ten Monros
|
|