Recent content by Spirit of 1977

Yes there is, I have provided you with ample math on this, and you refuse to provide similar math. >>A PP-1 feeds enough power for a Drive-1 is a simple shorthand to be compatible with LBB2 This is precisely the power fungibility problem I laid out that you refuse to acknowledge. Compatibility...

My latest rebuild was the Atlantic Class Heavy Cruiser from Supp9 pg. 32. It is 75000 D-tons, 5G (Agility 5), Jump-4, and Armor 10. I was not able to reproduce all of these parameters. Under my revised rules, Jump-4 and Armor 10 guaranteed that at least 55% of ship's volume was always consumed...

I finished the Heavy Cruiser rebuild, and at first the results were surprising, but then I realized they represented a fundamental conflict between HG and MT that my redesign deliberately did not include. So before I post the rebuild, I need to discuss this conflict. This exercise has taken the...

Thanks for the SDB info, and as a reward, let's look at some SDBs! These are based upon the 400 D-ton from Supp7 and the 200 D-ton from Supp9, both designed with HG. There are some very interesting tradeoffs in these examples, so I'll be interested in any commentary. Remember to refer back to...

Just as I was getting ready to post my redesigned SDB, I found that the version in Supp7 Traders and Gunboats is nothing like the one in Supp9, and that the MT version is based upon Supp7, the 400 D-ton version. So two questions: 1) For the long-time players, does anyone know why the design...

Because I like you, I did some math (OK, I like math). For a first pass, I assumed a spherical hull which does not address your surface area point. But continuing, I first looked at my Type A models. I converted armor volume to thickness, backed out the TL 14 multiple, and came up with a hard...

I hadn't, but I just did. It's not compelling enough versus the MT exercise I've just conducted, which I think solves the same problems. It's a perfectly good system to use, but I'm trying to perfect MT.

Yes! Particularly when the stakes are low, like in a fictional game, the discussion can be free wheeling.

Not in MT (just max 6) but yes in HG (min of MD or PP number), and the point of this exercise was to try to adjust MT to be closer to HG. If we are going to bring MT closer to HG, we also need to accept the limitations allow with the perceived advantages of HG.

This has already been done in Striker and MT. I mean, it's fiction, but values have been set. BSD armor is very dense (32 g/ml per my variant) but therefore allows a much thinner shell (x0.14 to mass per MT).

Because you can't do that. Agility is limited to the MD number. So Agility is indeed a function of MD, but only in the amount of excess power you can deliver. Once that is chosen, it's power to weight.

While we continue to discuss the density of LH, I have one more comment on the revised assumptions I'm using to get MT back closer to HG. I knew there was still one missing assumption that would eventually produce a failure like the SDB. I did not use this assumption because it is the worst part...

No, it's supposed to be a power to weight ratio, like all other actual physical systems. MT Agility is a power to weight ratio. HG doesn't "use" weight, but if you amazingly use the D-ton mass assumption I used you miraculous get the MT formula from the HG formula. Clearly a freak accident. /end...

OK, first failure! As I feared, heavily armored ships could be an issue. But in this case, I also think there is a size problem. Before I go further, I'd like opinions on where you would compromise. I tried to reconstruct the System Defense Boat (SDB) from Supp 9 Fighting Ships. The problem is...

I am not changing that one. Too many other changes for a 3% difference. Sorry.