There is some overlap especially if you play with miniatures.
Plus Trillion Cr Squadron which is how I discovered Traveller.
A dodge is just a negative DM to hit, making hits and specially crits less likely.
Can always jump or move to the other side of a planet. They could follow you but then they leave their side of the planet unguarded. This sort of thing isn’t really represented in the combat system for the RPG, which is one of the reasons I asked if we had roleplayers or wargamers in the discussion. its the sort of thing that tends to get scripted in by the GM in an RPG, rather than resolved mechanically.AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:28 amSure we could withdraw damaged ships, but it is impractical in open terrain-less space. We would have to accelerate away out of range which takes considerable time, time enough for the enemy to finish off the damaged ship...
A Plankwell, no. A Tigress, most certainly. A Tigress’s one Spinal Mount averages 77,000 points of damage. One could split that in half and still be pretty confident of taking out a Ghalalk, even with meson screens.AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:37 am
Multiple small spinals might be able to one-shot a destroyer, if it could hit it, but hardly a cruiser.
E.g. a Plankwell could just about one-shot Ghalalk-class cruiser (since it lacks defences). There is no way it could carry several spinals each capable of the same.
Yes, agreed, that monstrosity could one-shot two ships one-tenth its size.
It's expensive and inefficient, but...
It's too large and expensive to make a good exploit. It gives us more choices. I don't see much of a problem, even if it is a bit ambiguously described.
That's a modular hull, not a break away hull. Separate rules. (If we're talking about Mongoose 2).AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:01 pmIt's too large and expensive to make a good exploit. It gives us more choices. I don't see much of a problem, even if it is a bit ambiguously described.
It is needed to build something like the classic "Modular Cutter".
The cooling and power generation might be separatable from the weapon. Maybe it's something like a GPMG where one soldier carries the weapon with a small load of ammo, and an assistant carries spare barrels, ammo, and the tripod that allow it to use long-range or sustained fire.Condottiere wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:30 pmI thought it might be neat to have a series of breakaway hulls carrying the components of a spinal mount, which then unite to recreate the super weapon system.
Then I thought about what exactly those descriptive words mean.
Spines aren't meant to be broken up.
Not quite, a module in MgT2 is an internal component. Removing it does not change displacement or the potential of the drives. See picture HG p102.
I didn't realise/remember the CT one changed displacement when it lost the module. Because that would require the modules were built as ship hulls and it would cost a fortune.AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:14 pmNot quite, a module in MgT2 is an internal component. Removing it does not change displacement or the potential of the drives. See picture HG p102.
The CT Modular Cutter had an external module; When it was removed displacement and drive potential changed. See JTAS#5, p7.
CT Module ≠ MgT2 Module.
The only way to accurately portray a CT Modular Cutter using MgT2 is by using a breakaway hull.
Users browsing this forum: heron61 and 14 guests