Hi everyone, following this are some comments on the BL design rules,
most of you probably don't know me, but I am one of the "old-timers" on
the list, just now getting back into the list after untangling myself
from James' enforcement of Nightly digests...But I digress...
I thought the new design sequence was fairly well thought out, and
less troublesome than the MegaTraveller Mess. Any design system without
*extensive* use is going to have a flaw or two, and every traveller
system has, one has to separate the flaws from complaints about how
it doesn't quite mesh with the last edition's sequence. Just think what
problems would have been in the system had they rushed it and included
it in the rules...
Sorry if any of these have been brought up before on the list, and I
welcome (actually desire) comments on any of this:
Step 1:
Again we are limited to 1,000,000 tons displacement. I have
never really been happy from the first when a 5,000? ton limit was set.
Hulls should be allowed to be any size, and perhaps drives could have
a theoretical maximim....
I'm not too comfortable with the surface area and material value
computations, however I'll have to assume that everything works out O.K.
Configuration. Why is a box design the cheapest streamlined
one? and a dome (half sphere) is significantly more expensive than
a sphere??
Armour, at last, the biggest flaw with MT is resolved, no
longer can impregnatable ships be designed. Sure one can have a 560 armour
ship, but not much will happen with it when it has no sensors,
communicators, weapons, or maneuver (No jump either if the grid was
included on the hull surface calulations [see next item]).
Step 2:
I would have thought with the new surface area rules, that
the lanthium grid should have consumed some fraction of the surface area.
Step 3:
Controls are independant of any other stage of the design process
so the cheapest would always be taken. (My opinion for a quick fix is that
the controls should always equal the TL of the computer, rather than less
than the computer's TL, or optionally that the sensors/FCD's can't be a
higher TL than the controls).
Some packages of standard communications/sensor suites by TL would
have been a good aid, and there is blank space in this section that could
have held it...
Communications: Recieve-only and send-only equipment modifications
would be useful, though starships would tend to have both, one might
argue that some of the more optional equipment, such as meson, where the
price and volume are significant, one or the other could come in useful.
Step 4:
MFD sensors. If they can be used to direct fire control, why
can't they be used as real sensors, or optionally install a real sensor
to do double duty. The MFD communicator, as it is full price, really
shouldn't be restricted on it's use (as long as the MFD isn't operating
of course).
The weapons look okay, a little short on variety, and as high-TL
are not part of the "official" traveller universe, there shunting to FF&S
is no problem for me. One cannot tell weapon effects without running
a lot of combat "simulations".
Step 5:
Small detail, but why weren't air locks in the "access ports"
section of the rules?
Step 6:
Fusion plants use thier fuel in KL/year!??!! a 1/8760 reduction
in fuel use?? I'm not certain of the physics involved (Metlay?) but this
seems a significant change.
Step 7:
No more wierd-science thruster plates! Why is H2 used as a
reaction mass? I would have thought something more dense would have
been appropriate.
Actually a while back on the list we had a discussion of the
most efficient fuel, and if I recall, Methane had more H per unit
volume than LHyd, and the Carbon could now be used as a reaction mass....
Step 8:
I always thought that the life-support calculations should
include some relation to the crew size for the endurance of the craft
(or are we assuming some mystical re-generation of water/air/food?)
There is no mention of partial outfitting of the environmntal
equipment. e.g. why have extended life support in the fuel tanks? I'm
certain there are regions of the ship that have no need of Gravity or
G compensation (flight surfaces, possibly fuel tanks)
Step 9:
The new crew rules now require 3 (standard 2) crew for the
venerable scout design, because of the Cm number.
The rounding of the terms on the crew could lead to some
abuses of the system. (e.g. 9/19 low passengers require no doctor
while 10/20 do).
The possibility of doubling up on some positions and some
minimums (esp. for smaller ships, and commerce vs. military) should be
more fully explained.
(nit) The repeated use of terms for different sections meaning
different things is annoying (Pm, Wm)
Design Evaluation/Data Profiles
The presense of a bridge is not clear (e.g the scout).
Total fuel tankage is not listed (at least I'm confused about it)
it could be calculated (loaded-unloaded mass - cargo?)
While we are on mass, the mass of passengers is strangely absent
the seats (which mass 20Kg) obviously don't include it. This could be
significant on some ships like shuttles (8 tonnes or 1% of the mass on
the shuttle on P47 [assuming 100Kg per person])
Rules:
As mentioned in another post, what happened to the use of
densitometers and Neutrino sensors as combat-type sensors?
The Proportional Movement guide is nice, but as movement is
pre-plotted, and fire occurs after all movement, why is it there? Which
brings up another point, the 1/2 hour turns. In a person's hand a laser
weapon has a cycle time of seconds, why only one shot in 30 minutes of
ship combat (unless it is to allow movement to have an effect on the game).
and even though the ships may pass within a hex during movement, by
combat time, ranges may be significantly altered.
Notibly lacking is any discussion of backup systems (except in
the computer listing of the damage effects), or multiple systems working
together. This used to be important in the maneuver drives section and
power plants. It's funny how weapons always seem to know what is active
at any time (e.g. computers), and never score hits on an already destroyed
item.
All and all a farily good design system, I really don't see what people
are complaining so much about.
Awaiting the holes that are shure to be found in my arguments
-Dan
Dan Corrin, Network Manager, Mechanical Engineering, UWO, London, Ontario
InterNet: [email removed]. [phone removed]
TML/CZ/FrameUsers/Consim FTP site: ftp.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.100.12)