Steve Higginbotham writes:
> 2) Design requirements and (possible) mistakes: All of the canned
> ships have quite a lot of maneuver fuel. All well and good for PCs to rip
> around in, but aren't the merchant ships designed to make money???
As a work-around, perhaps we can assume that the provided ship designs
are as modified for exploratory trading in the wilds? At least until we
get teh Technical Architecture manual (or wherever GDW decides to put
the starship design rules).
> Either way, it is
> easier to use a J-1 boat to do the job that an SDB used to do (after all,
> the J-1 requires MUCH less fuel than the normal space crossing, and takes
> less time if you are going as far as Jupiter...)
Definitely. It might even be a good idea to put a Jump-0 drive into the
Technical Architecture book. A jump drive optimized for in-system
travel; probably with a maximum range of under a half a light year per
jump. Such a drive, particularly if it were cheaper and/or consumed
less fuel, would be particularly nice. Say, about half size and cost of
a J-1 drive, and about half fuel consumption. Max jump about a half a
light-year.
> 5) Best of all: the new system puts a premium on crew skill. The
> PLAYER-CHARACTERS ARE BACK IN THE LOOP. Fr the first time since HG came out,
> I LIKE it!
Yes. This is a good change.
> 1) The "100 Diameters Travel Times" Table on page 225 is incorrect in
> almost every entry.
> 2) The Interplanetary Distance Matrix has many entries, of which no
> more than 1/3 are correct.
> 3) The "Interplanetary Speed" Table has nine entries. NONE are correct
Can you provide corrected tables?
Perhaps Loren Wiseman can tell us how long it will be until a second
printing, and if there's a good way to ensure that everything we find is
brought to the attention of the proper people over there at GDW.
Bertil Jonell writes:
> Steve Higginbotham writes:
> > One moderately serious technical error though: under these rules,
> > there are different government ratings in the wilds and the safes. So a
> > government rating of "7" means one thing on THIS side of the line, and
> > another thing on the other side of the line. This was NOT a bright
> > move. Instead, you should have extended the rating scales like was
> > originally done for the various alien government types...
>
> I agree with this.
In my humble opinion, the multiple conflicting definitions for UWP
government codes is the single most serious problem with the rules, and
should be fixed immediately (as in "Is there still time to prepare an
errata page for the boxed edition?") if not sooner. This multiple
definition was presumably done on purpose, although I must admit that I
can't figure out what the reason was. In any case, the problems
outweigh the benefits: THIS WAS A BAD IDEA AND NEEDS TO BE FIXED; I'm
treating it as an error, and have prepared what I think is a
workable fix, which will be presented in a post immediately following.
[email removed]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science-Fiction Adventure
in the New Era