Alien Module 3: Darrians Preview
- Thread starter DeadMike
- Start date
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
AndrewW said:
exactly. Plus, suppose the contractor had a cousin in the turret business with a bunch of triple missile launchers surplus from another design that was cancelled ?
Didn't the Tiger I end up with a variant turret because another competing designer had built a bunch of turrets to the alternate spec and stood to like a bath ? Possibly Porche ? I know the Elefant ended up with a no support weapon equipped version (88m main gun, no machineguns) because that contractor didn't think they would be missed.....
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Blix said:
How so ? One can compare a ship and a tank in terms of design systems, funding and compromise between competing interests and still make meaningful comparisons; professionals do it all the time. Its a discussion about the systems that produce something, not the purpose. Still, whatever. The shuttle is just one of the examples.
Another thing is that, from a publishing point of view, presenting deliberately flawed designs in a book makes little sense to me and seems like a waste of pages. If a publisher is going to present some example designs used by an alien race, then why present ones that don't work properly?
If you had limited space to present three or four vehicle designs that highlighted all of earth's technology for a book, would you pick ones that had obvious, known flaws? Or would you pick ones that were known to work well and effectively and did the job they were designed to do with as little trouble as possible?
It's not a huge deal, but it does strike me as being strange.
If you had limited space to present three or four vehicle designs that highlighted all of earth's technology for a book, would you pick ones that had obvious, known flaws? Or would you pick ones that were known to work well and effectively and did the job they were designed to do with as little trouble as possible?
It's not a huge deal, but it does strike me as being strange.
Well, here is a thought. Can anyone point out something in the real world that does not have a flaw - something more complicated than a paperclip, at any rate.
An XBox overheats, an Aston Martin breaks down, a Chinook falls out of the sky.
Getting a bit depressed about the world we live in now
An XBox overheats, an Aston Martin breaks down, a Chinook falls out of the sky.
Getting a bit depressed about the world we live in now
msprange said:
Yes, but they're not designed to do that. You're designing ships and vehicles that are!
What you're doing is the equivalent of leaving out the hard drive in an XBox Elite, giving the aston martin ridiculously low fuel efficiency, or having rotors that are known beforehand to fall off under stress on a Chinook. It's the sort of thing that makes people look at the design and say "what the heck were they thinking when they built this?!", and it's too much, I think.
I was watching an old Top Gear recently where they had a souped-up custom car that was a prime example of this - it was so powerful that its systems actually couldn't handle the torque and as a result it skidded all over the place and was practically undriveable. That sort of thing could never go into full production.
I'm not suggesting that things aren't flawed, I'm just saying that the "flaws" you're espousing for your ships are too severe and too clumsy for their purpose, and are more like abject design failures. IMO it would be better to use a random table of "minor malfunctions/inconveniences" like the ones that hdan suggested.
Maybe individual ships in that class could have more major problems (which would be another table to roll on) that could blow up in the PCs faces at an inopportune moment (e.g. the missile feed jams at a bad time (possibly explosively), structural weakness in the hull causes a breach into space during combat maneuvers, there's a flat 5% that the landing strut will snap if the ship lands on a high-g world because it wasn't tested properly, etc). I don't think that's too unreasonable, so long as they're not necessarily instantly fatal and the PCs have a good chance to survive but be very inconvenienced if something bad does happen.
Those are more like the sort of thing that you're talking about in the post I replied to - that every now and then examples of the vehicle will have problems. But if a vehicle has a known, consistent problem then it's not going to stay that way for long because the vehicle will be recalled and fixed (again, look at the various Toyota, Honda, etc car recalls)... and then it won't be a problem anymore. And if you suggest that you're just presenting designs before the problem is caught then that makes no sense at all, especially for mass-produced, standard designs like spaceships.
A good example for the opposite approach would be the Lockheed F-104Blix said:
Starfighter, a mass produced aircraft that killed 116 pilots in Germany alo-
ne. And there are dozens more of obviously dangerously flawed designs
that were mass produced and kept in service for decades.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Iphone, first Imac.Blix said:
Corvette; Lincolin continental
Bell UHB -cargo . F 104. USMC Harrier.
Okay, so note that one design out of how many ? Relax. Some dogs are needed.
1968 Shelby Cobra. F 104 (a big winner in the best misuse of a specialized design, BTW)
Write one. Send it to S&P. Not being snarky, really would like to see it.
"makes no sense at all". Yeah, if that was was the goal was.
Try again. Its a description of an existing ship, not the design specs.
A write up of the USMC Harrier would have to include an engine that badly overheats in that airframe, and effects the performance, in some cases quite drastically.
In any case perhaps the current version is after re-purpose. Lots of designs have been changed either in production or in use such that they lose some of their original functions. And historically taking weapons off a military item is one of the least likely things to happen. So, hows that ? Any help there ?
Look, I think we're clear that you think it the design is ....irrationally flawed. Are you asking a question "how does this make sense" or simply announcing "this does not make sense" ? Either is fine, but in the first case is there any actual information which will change your mind ? 'Cause if not, or if you're just making your opinion known, I guess we can move on, rather than waste your time on attempts to discuss it; no hard feelings, agree to disagree, you know. And we're here to have fun, right ?
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
rust said:
Crap. 116 ? I know it killed lots of ours. Why in the name of god did the german air force have it ? I know the performance of a 104 - its a rocket with a saddle. if you launch it on the Rhine, won't it be in Poland before its at max speed and altitude ?
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
msprange said:
I got a nasty cut from a paperclip when I reached into a drawer, once. :?
captainjack23 said:
I'd just like a rational, in-setting explanation for ship designs. Saying "we just deliberately design broken ships" just throws that completely overboard.
I'm OK with the ship having limited ammo (or range, or whatever) if its designers (in the game setting) assumed that the ship wouldn't be required to use its weaponry much. That is something that can be mentioned in the description, can be used as a reasonable explanation for the design, and would significantly affect how the ship is used.
What I'm not OK with it is having the game designers come out and say that the ship has limited ammo because they either forgot about it during the design process or because they deliberately screwed it up to simulate how they thought real world vehicles worked. That just doesn't make any sense at all. It also calls into question every other design that they've presented in their book.
And I would appreciate it if you did not to attempt to stifle further discussion in the future.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
You have been given several in response to your question. Pick one. Or don't, since they seem to not be up to your standards of rationality. I don't see that we need to make sure its one you like, especially if you're going to be so dismissive of attempts to answer you.Blix said:
Matt's said what it was, so either he's lying (which seems to be your position) or, since nothing that has been suggested as an explantion is good enough, you'll have to settle for him not doing it your way. I'm not sure berating for constantly being wrong in your eyes is the way to go to get him to change, lord know, it didn't work for Doctor Ganymede. But who knows ?
Actually, I'm not that powerful, but thanks for fearing me, I guess...
I was just suggesting that we were wasting your time, since nothing we suggested in answer to your question was good enough; clearly that's the case, since none of them are "rational". But, by all means, continue looking. By the way, were you on other traveller forums , or here under another name ? You seem familiar .....
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
rust said:
Sigh. macNamara -Nixon era, right ? no freakin surprise.
Perhaps you should look in the mirror before berating others, since you seem to have a very low tolerance for discussion that you do not want to hear (also, you seem to think that you can just throw your own response back and that it should be sufficient to end the discussion). I particularly don't like being told to shut up when I am wasting my time answering a question that you yourself asked of me.
I'm not being "dismissive" either. Matt actually said "We often do 'standard' ships with intentional weak points and/or inefficiencies." on the first page, and my concern stems from that statement.
Be that as it may, I'm sure Matt is quite capable of defending his viewpoint and making his own arguments adequately without having you attempt to intimidate or beat the opposition into silence for him. If you want to do that, I suggest you go over to CotI where such behavior seems to be acceptable.
I'm not being "dismissive" either. Matt actually said "We often do 'standard' ships with intentional weak points and/or inefficiencies." on the first page, and my concern stems from that statement.
Be that as it may, I'm sure Matt is quite capable of defending his viewpoint and making his own arguments adequately without having you attempt to intimidate or beat the opposition into silence for him. If you want to do that, I suggest you go over to CotI where such behavior seems to be acceptable.
The decision to buy the F-104 dates from 1958, the Eisenhower admini-captainjack23 said:
stration.
Our experts wanted the Mirage, but our MoD could not resist Lockheed's
offer of a significant contribution (most probably 10 million USD*) to his
personal economy, so Germany ordered 900 of the flying coffins.
* somehow our Ministry of Defense managed to "lose" all files about the
Starfighter deal in 1962, so this is based on what a Lockheed whistleblo-
wer told the US Senate ...
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
rust said:
Wow, that's even more sordid than I would have imagined. So that wasn't selling off planes that were old and lost their purpose, but rather first round sales. 900 ? that means that ~ 1 in 5 killed a pilot. What a mess.
It wasn't so much a bad plane, as one badly matched to a young, reforming airforce still building back its technical competence. There were issues with operating it in northern European conditions, too. The Canadians lost an even higher percentage of theirs (50%), while the Spanish lost none and the Italians quite liked theirs.
It was the first operational mach 2 fighter and used in its designed role (nuclear capable strike fighter) quite effective. But the Luftwaffe really wanted and needed a multi-role interceptor.
It was the first operational mach 2 fighter and used in its designed role (nuclear capable strike fighter) quite effective. But the Luftwaffe really wanted and needed a multi-role interceptor.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
rinku said:
In fact, I did some research on DarNet, and found the following.
From Darrian aerospace defense quarterly 1102/4
".....once the flaws in the Maggahaz type 72 fast jump drive were deemed insoluble, the decision to abandon the 432 scout project was unavoidable, but the need for a vanguard scout still existed. Accordingly, until a new design could be started, the Darrian Navy turned to the venerable but less than effective Tengg class picket scout.
Originally designed with two triple turrets to saturation engage incoming fighters (and torpedoes) with missiles and anti missiles, the Thengg had shown itself unlikely to survive long enough to fire a significant number of its almost 60 cached missiles in its 4.5 ton magazine. In the first six actions involving Thengg, five were destroyed before more than 25% of their missiles were expended due to their lack of close in point defense. The replacement of one turret with a laser system did add some needed point defense, but unfortunately halved its rate of fire. Production was stopped, and most were transferred to customs or patrol duty to which they were poorly suited due to cramped quarters, particularly when the crew space was reduced for the fuel processors needed in frontier posts.
When the 432 project was canceled, it was decided that the Thengg could be repurposed with little loss to existing fleet strength, and in a minimum of time; it was easily converted to double jump capacity by installing drop tank links in the otherwise useless magazine space. Power demand plus a shortage of type 112 triple turrets resulted in it retaining the missile turret, despite the lack of reloads. The turret has proven useful for intel drone launching, and it is rumored that all versions have at least one high yield Nuclear missile for a last ditch punch.
The Darrian Navy has found this stopgap to be surprisingly effective as a vanguard scout, and is seriously considering restarting production of the the Thengg in this configuration "
Any help, Matt ? I suspect the writer just forgot to include this in the description - or possibly not everyone has access to DAD-Q. feel free to pass it along...
