Re: (1841) TDR Ideas

>From: John Wilber [email removed]
>MANEUVER DRIVES
>
>In this diagram, the ship would rotate clockwise.  The 6G limitation
>could be imposed by saying that grav modules can only be made so thin,
>and power-supply frequencies have to be increased as the amount of
>"thrust" is increased.  To eliminate large phase differences between
>different parts of a grav array (array = bunch of modules) the modules
>have to be made thinner and thinner as wavelengths decrease.  At 6G's,
>they can't be made any thinner.  Agility can be described as using
>extra energy to produce additional VGFs which would move the craft up,
>down, or sideways while the biggest VGF would be moving the craft
>sideways.

While the Jump-6 limitation is reasonable, why stay with the 6G limit?
Just make it MUCH more costly (in power terms) to hit those high gees.

Does the use of some sort of power function for grav power sound more
correct?  Thus

       Power = (constant) * ((grav * mass)^(scale))

Scale of efficiency and the power constant decrease with increasing TL,
making high G's feasable at higher TL's.  The actual volume/mass of the grav
array might decrease a bit with higher TL's, but the biggest gain from the
higher tech is decreased power requirements.

Worlds that have better High-Common TL then air-travel TL might have a
decreased scale value, while the reverse would apply to the constant value.
In addition, the use of wings in an atmosphere would reduce the constant value
to a small degree.

>VEHICLE DESIGN
>
>I think that TDR should have a vehicle design system that would apply
>across the whole range of vehicle sizes- kind of like a "unified field
>theory" of vehicle design.  Again, I think _Striker_ has the right
>idea.  I like Striker's system because you know that the resultant
>vehicle is x meters wide, y meters tall, and z meters long, unlike
>MegaTraveller.  The designer would use the same rules for designing any

I feel that unifying this much is too much of a good thing.  A car is not
a boat, nor is a sub a spaceship.  There should probably be three sets of
design rules, based on a common core:

   Ground vehicles: Cars, trucks, etc.  No grav stuff, but includes hovercraft.
   Watercraft:      Boats, subs, etc.
   Aircraft:        Grav craft, spacecraft, etc.

I think it should be broken up a bit just because of the differences in design
philosophy.  If you wish to make an aero-car, you would use the basic aircraft
rules and add vehicle stuff.  A sub-plane would use either the aircraft or
watercraft rules, depending on primary emphasis.

>COMBAT SYSTEM
>
>I like the Azhanti High Lightning/Striker system of combat where
>separate rolls to hit and penetrate are needed.  If a hit location
>chart (arms/legs/torso/head) is added, the problem of taking cover is
>resolved- if the part of the body hit is under cover, then figure in
>the armor value of the cover when rolling the penetration.  This also
>makes it easy to adjust for different ammo types in certain weapons
>(like the ACR).

IMHO, the "overall body damage" system is outdated and should be
eliminated.  Also, the direct use of characteristics for "hitpoints"
should be dropped in favor of a more abstract system (perhaps similar to
"STAR WARS").  Each character is given a "toughness" rating (based on Strength,
Endurance, and some racial modifiers -- kkee should be tougher then humans).
When a character's armor is breached, the "degree of damage (DOD)" is determined.
If an optional hit location table is used, head hits might be DODx10, arms
DODx1/2, etc.  By cross referencing the DOD with teh toughness, you can
determine wounding (superficial, light, moderate, serious, critical, lethal).

This system would retain enough of the old system, but add some "space
opera-ish" taste.

- - -============================================================================-
 Burton Choinski                                       [email removed]
   Prime Computer, Inc.                                  [phone removed]
   Framingham, Ma.  01701
 Disclaimer:  Down! Down! Down! Out! Out! Out! Mine! Mine! Mine!
- - -============================================================================-

[I added a subject line and edited the attribution -- James]