George Herbert:
> Here's an optional MegaTraveller craft design sequence
>modification/optional rule that I'd like some comments on...
>
>CRAMPED ENGINE ROOMS
<explanation for above>
Only one thing I take exception to here: Less space shouldn't require
more engineering crew, since they would only get in each other's way
in the cramped space. I saw enough of that on the submarine to last a
lifetime. Try requiring more maintenance groundside (for every day in
space, the engineering crew has to work xx% of a day after landing to
get ready for the next flight).
Scott Kellogg (2G)
>}with armor-120 can now be damaged by weapons smaller than factor-T.
>
>Hmm, according to the design tables in the Referee's Guide, this
>should NOT be a problem until Tech Level 24. (Max armor is TL *5)
>So the max armor available in the Imperium (That *I* wanna deal with)
>is Armor=75G at TL 15).
Max ADD-ON armour is 75. Max armour is 115. 120 still out to lunch
below TL16.
>I kind of like the idea that a weapon still causes damage even though
>it may not penetrate the hull. I heartily appaud this idea.
>Assigning chassis damage is a good idea. Also burning it's armor off
>sounds plausible.
I agree. I'm skeptical about burning off armour unless the weapons
are really horrendous (large nukes, spinal mounts, MANY batteries of
lesser stuff).
{
>}7. Optional Sensor Rules
>} Make all sensor tasks one level less difficult if the target is in
>}an adjacent hex.
>}Make active sensor tasks one level more difficult:
>}o if the target is within a gas giant,
>}o when attempted through a hex where a nuclear missile has exploded.
>}o if target uses jamming.
>}Neutrino detection:
>}o If target's EMLevel is faint, give a -1 DM to neutrino scans.
>}o If target's EMLevel is strong, give a +1 DM to neutrino scans.
>
>Don't forget background neutrinos. (The sun... high population
>planets where everybody owns a fusion powered air/raft... etc.)
There is NO "neutrino scan" in this game. Neutrino detectors are
integrated into PEMS scan tasks. Neutrino detectors do do pinpoint
tasks, but EMLevel has little, if anything, to do with neutrino
emissions, and so should have little to do with associated tasks.
In any case, the subject is already dealt with in the rules: faint
EMlevel means you need an exceptional success, strong EMlevel needs
anything better than exceptional failure.
>}Densitometer detection:
>}o If target is small, give a -1 DM to densitometer scans.
>}o If target is large, give a +1 DM to densitometer scans.
>}o Increase detection task difficulty by one level if detection is
>}attempted through a planet or moon with size 5+ or through a
>}planetoid belt.
The first two cases are already dealt with in the rules: small targets
require exceptional success to detect with PasObjScan/Pin, large
objects are detected with anything better than exceptional failure.
The third case assumes you can detect an object through a planet
8000Km thick with a sensor that has a max penetration of 1Km.
Planetoid belts are mostly (99.9999999999999%) empty space - who cares
whether you hide in one?
>All the above sound like good ideas. However the range and detection
>of sensors needs work. As far as I can see, it is just about
>impossible to detect a ship at the rated range of the sensors. Now I
>can understand that a sensor could detect other ships out to far
>orbit range, but even with a model 9 computer and a Far orbit range
>sensor, you just can't detect them that far. So what does a 'Far
>Orbit' sensor detect? What does an 'Interstellar' sensor detect? If
>the answer is nothing, why then are they called that?
This I agree with wholeheartedly!
>}Time and distance. I plan to scale down the time and distance scale
>}in starship combat from 20 minutes/25000km to 4 minutes/5000km. For
>}longer combat turns, more damage must be given for each hit.
Not bright idea, grasshopper. Original assumption behind scale was
that hex size be distance traveled after time scale acceleration at
one G. This has changed in MT, until distance scale has little, if
anything, to do with something so trivial as acceleration and
velocity. (proper scale should be 20min/15,000Km (or even 7500Km for
you high realism types (like me)). Changing to a four minute time
scale requires that the distance scale be reduced to 600Km (or 1000Km
to stay consistant with MT).
>Bad Idea. In my experience, opposing ships open fire as soon as they
>are within range. (Far orbit) With 4 minute turns and 5000 km hexes
>how big a board are you gonna have to plot the movement on? Far
>orbit range would leave you with 100 hexes to worry about. It gets
>rediculous! If each hex is a centimeter, your map needs to be a
>meter across. In my experince, combat lasts several turns say 10?
>In forty minutes, ships will not close significantly from Far Orbit
>ranges. By the time they got within close range (to use fusion guns
>and where meson gun performance goes up) They will be lifeless
>drifting rocks burned to bits by laser batteries and missiles.
Too true. So don't use meson guns and fusion guns. MT allows a
missile launcher to chunk out 1 shot per minute (in personal combat),
but only 1 shot per twenty minutes in ship combat. Bringing those two
numbers in closer agreement won't bother me very much, even if it DOES
invalidate half the ship designs out there.
>} Movement: I am inclined to make some changes in the movement
>}rules.
>} First, I want to make heading changes somewhat more difficult. As
>}in Interceptor or Leviathan, it costs thrust points to change
>}heading. What I want to do is require a certain number of hexes
>}travelled at a given velocity before allowing a one hex side course
>}change. How many hexes to travel may depend on both maneuver gee
>}and/or agility. Using this rule would make it appropriate to limit
>}the arc of the spinal mount to forward.
NO!!! If you want to fix movement rules, get back to Mayday rules!
They are the only set of movement rules that were ever orth the
trouble of writing down (Unless you count "Battlefleet:Mars", which
did the same sort of thing in three dimensions).
>Hold it right there! Are you telling me that a ship with (at the
>very least) 1 G thrust to mass ratio CAN'T bring it's nose to bear on
>target EVEN in the FOUR MINUTE time intervals you suggest? No WAY!
>If a ship can not turn faster than that, then agility would have no
>hope of bringing any correction help in avoiding fire.
Even if a ship CAN turn faster, agility won't help (in a realistic
world picture - you want agility to help, let ships pull 60Gs)
>And given the fact that they are (and should remain) 20 minute turn
>intervals, I have some trouble seeing any firing arc restrictions.
>Even the ones we currently use!
I agree here, even for four minute turns.
>... In a vaccum this will not be a problem: No wings.
No. No AIR.
>}DAMAGE RESULTS
>}Fuel Tank. I'm going to change the "fuel tank shattered" to "fuel
>}leak". A certain amount of fuel will be lost per turn. Subsequent
>}hits will make the leak more severe.
>In a 20 minute turn, a fuel tank that is open to space will evacuate
>itself. Even a slow leak. I have trouble seeing it not empty itself
>even in the four minute intervals you suggest. If there is a leak,
>that fuel in that compartment will be lost immediately. It won't
>bleed off slowly unless it is a tiny leak. A self sealing tank
>should be well able to handle any such tiny leaks.
I assume that fuel tanks are self-sealing (we do it now, why can't
they?), and that the fuel tanks are NOT "ONE BIG VOID" in the hull.
Rather more like a myriad of little, self-contained tanks, linked by
piping with cutout valves that are closed in the event of leakage.
Net result: fuel leaks are ridiculous, fuel tanks being shattered
slightly less so. But only slightly.
>}y stress severely limits heading changes
>
>No. If the structure is sound enough to take 1G acceleration, it can
>certainly stand rotational stresses which would be negligible in a
>four minute combat turn and zero in a 20 minute one.
Agreed.
>}y Agility drops to zero
>
>How so if it can still push 1G?
Likewise.
>}y may not fire spinal mount
>
>Hmmm. I don' know. At the Inoperative position, the hull has not
>collapsed yet, that indicates to me that the spine of the ship is
>still intact.
Why not? If the spinal mount is intact, it can shoot. If the hull
can pull one G, then the recoil (if any) of the spinal mount is
irrelevant (unless the ship can pull more than one G backwards using
the spinal mount as a drive)
>}y Craft may not be recovered. They may be launched.
>
>That doesn't make sence. If there is an open path for ships to
>leave, then there exists a path for them to enter. I think you are
>confusing slow relative velocity docking maneuvers with carrier deck
>operations. Carrier deck operations are of necessity held at high
>speeds to prevent aircraft from stalling. In vaccum it is absolutely
>impossible for spacecraft to stall. (Shades of Battlestar Galactica
>:-P)
If the ship is config-7 hull, the whole question should be moot.
Snuggle up to any empty spot on the hull.
>}y Rapid Launch Facilities are inoperative.
>
>I dunno, the spine is still intact. Why would this happen?
>Remember: rapid launch does not mean carrier steam catapults.
Again, unless the launch facility can provide greater than one G
thrust when operated as a drive, who cares?
>}y Fuel leak.
>
>Sounds good.
See earlier comments about fuel leaks...
Later, later...
- -- Via DLG Pro v0.991
[email removed]
I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
--W. von Braun