I've been having email conversations with Robert Dean about what to
do with maneuver drives. I'm going to relist some of the salient points and
conclude by asking a question I asked Rob... whether strict reality or
retaining compatability is more important.
[i'm trying to be neutral but probably failed... 8-]
The first point is that it's obvious that the current description
and justification for maneuver drives won't cut it as is.
Second point is that it doesn't matter for most ships that players will
deal with, as a simple change to thrust-based will not change the maneuver
drive mass-to-performance for most 'normal' ships. Counterpoint: there are
a lot of non-'normal' ships out there, and any such move would render the
designs incompatable. Subpoint of this would be a 'flavor-of-game' alteration,
because heavily armoured naval ships would end up with 1-G or less and most
player ships will be able to RUN AWAY 8-) ...
Third point: my pseudo-physics explanation for reactionless and
volume-based drives seems to work, and it remains compatable.
Fourth point: so does Rob's thrust based... and it's easier for some
people to swallow.
[rob, fill in here if i missed anything important...]
Anyway: my conclusion is thus: we can make one of two changes; either go
with the easier-to believe thrust based drives, and render starships outside
the 'normal' range incompatable (and possibly less useful [personal comment])
or, we can accept the somewhat further-out volume based system and remain
compatable with previous design rules.
I have a personal preference for which way to go, but since it's not
just my project, other people ought to have a say. Let the debate begin 8-)
- - -george william herbert
[email removed] OCF Staff