Responses

.OJ OFF
I trust no one will be overly confused if I reply to two messages with
one.

> Subject: (1479) Peformance of Starships/Shipsboats in Close   <
>                 Airspace                                      <
>                                                               <
> Hi List,                                                      <
>                                                               <
> I'm currently writing a mercenary scenario, and I was thinking<
> about the situation where fighter aircraft, jets and          <
> helicopters came against ships boats or even starships armed  <
> with lasers and missile racks.                                <
>                                                               <
> Are the spacecraft going to be like whales in sky, easily shot<
> down or are they flying fortresses, impervious to the weapons <
> of, say, earth's current tech level.                          <
>                                                               <
> i.e. who would win, a group of Tornados or the modular cutter?<
>                                                               <
> Any ideas? What is the generally accepted performance of      <
> normally space-bound vehicles inside close airspace?          <
>                                                               <
> Paul Netherwood                                               <

Without the rule books in front of me, it is my opinion that the combat
would be something like a bunch of gnats trying to annoy an elephant. Most
of the atmospheric fighters are not going to carry weapons heavy enough to
penetrate even a base armored (40) starship, so all they will do is inflict
10% damage per hit on the structure.  Most starships have structure to burn.
A starship laser hit, on the other hand, will do quite a bit of damage to
a fighter, although I think the COACC damage values for aircraft are severely
inflated.  If memory serves me correctly, a typical TL8 fighter plane can
absorb a number of hits by heavy SAMs, as long as they don't hit the engine,
which is not a terribly good model of the real world.

As far as maneuverability goes, I think you could almost get away with
considering the starship to travel in straight lines (limited in speed
by its streamlining level).  A small airframe vehicle, like some of the
ones I have uploaded can be rated for atmospheric maneuverability using
the regular aircraft rules from COACC if desired.

- ------------------------------

> Subject: (1482) Intro                                          <
>                                                                <
> I was wondering, why did 2300 AD (the revised one, not the     <
> Traveller 2300 AD one) die out?  I found it to be very easy to <
> use compared to the nightmare of Megatraveller.  It was a very <
> good hard science fiction game.  Do you think if they'd had    <
> player character alien races that it might have made a         <
> difference?                                                    <
>                                                                <
> I'm just puzzled.  I haven't seen this much lack of interest in<
> a game since checkers.                                         <
>                                                                <
> Joel                                                           <

It's just my opinion, mind you, but I'd say the worst probelms with
2300AD were the lack of a trade and commerce system, which on a larger
scale meant that most adventures tended to be combat oriented, and the
Kafers.  Since I can't see anyone wanting to use 2300 mechanics without
adopting the rest of the universe (I know, it could be done without
too much difficulty), the Kafers tend to be such an overwhleming problem
that I don't feel good about having human/human skulduggery going on with
that in the background.  Do we stop to argue about capitalism versus
communism in the middle of a burning building?  The fact that the combat
system is fairly lethal (which in my book is good, because I prefer games
which don't involve a lot of it) becomes a problem when characters are
pushed into fighting by the published adventures.  The overall lack of
an economic system makes it difficult for me to decide how to reward
characters, although at least the second edition has experience rules.

My comment on the first edition was that there was really no reward system
built into the game, since there was no obvious way to become rich, and
no experience rules.  I have a slew (30+) of role-playing rules lying around
my house, and I am usually planning for four or five (running them is
another matter entirely).  Thus, I like to have games that have enough of
an inherent reward structure that I can build adventures without having to
strain my imagination extensively, if I don't feel like it.

**********************************************************************
On another topic...

Did I read the message the other day correctly?  GDW is planning on dropping
support of SPACE:1889?  My favorite game in years...

Rob Dean